People v. Van Sickle
This text of 192 N.E.2d 9 (People v. Van Sickle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
I join in the court’s negative answer to the only question presented to us on this appeal, that is: must a criminal conviction be reversed solely because the lay complaining witness was allowed to conduct the prosecution? If there was before us for decision the much broader question as to the District Attorney’s rights and duties I would say that the courts as well as the District Attorney himself must obey the plain, clear mandate of subdivision 1 of section 700 of the County Law. That statute does not necessarily mean that the District Attorney or his deputy must be physically present at every criminal hearing in the county. However, it means at least that the District Attorney, as the elected representative of the people and charged with this responsibility, must carry the responsibility and must set up a system whereby he knows of all the criminal [63]*63prosecutions in his county and either appears therein in person or by assistant or consents to appearance on his behalf by other public officers or private attorneys.
I concur for reversal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
192 N.E.2d 9, 13 N.Y.2d 61, 242 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-sickle-ny-1963.