People v. Vogel

116 Misc. 2d 332, 457 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3878
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedAugust 4, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 116 Misc. 2d 332 (People v. Vogel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Vogel, 116 Misc. 2d 332, 457 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

Defendant was charged with obstructing governmental administration for attempting to free his brother from a police car after his brother had been arrested. At trial, defendant requested a jury instruction to the effect that he could not be convicted unless the jury found that the arrest of his brother was authorized. Such an instruction was not given.

In our view, the court erred in failing to give the requested instruction. Just as a defendant cannot be convicted of resisting arrest unless the People show that the arrest was lawful (see People v Stevenson, 31 NY2d 108; People v Harewood, 63 AD2d 876; People v Lyke, 72 Misc 2d [333]*3331046) so a defendant cannot be convicted of obstructing governmental administration for interfering with an officer in the performance of an official function unless it be proved that the official function was an authorized one (see People v O’Connor, 257 NY 473; People v Richter, 265 App Div 767; People v Ailey, 76 Misc 2d 589). When the official function involved is an arrest, it must be shown that the arrest was authorized. In this context, the issue of whether an arrest was authorized is for the jury and the jury must be clearly instructed that defendant cannot be convicted unless the arrest was authorized (see People v Harewood, supra). Since, in the instant case, the jury was not so instructed, a new trial is required.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Farley, P. J., Slifkin and Widlitz, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Wilson (Lakisha)
72 Misc. 3d 129(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Brukner
51 Misc. 3d 354 (Ithaca City Court, 2015)
People v. Guest
128 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Rodriquez
19 Misc. 3d 302 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2008)
People v. Perez
47 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Houghton v. Culver
452 F. Supp. 2d 212 (W.D. New York, 2006)
Esmont v. City of New York
371 F. Supp. 2d 202 (E.D. New York, 2005)
People v. Cacsere
185 Misc. 2d 92 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Anthony B.
201 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Lupinacci
191 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Joseph
156 Misc. 2d 192 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1992)
People v. Simon
145 Misc. 2d 518 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1989)
In re Verna C.
143 A.D.2d 94 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Stumpp
129 Misc. 2d 703 (Suffolk County District Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Misc. 2d 332, 457 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vogel-nyappterm-1982.