People v. Wassel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wassel

31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 19, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 525 (People v. Wassel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Wassel, 31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment convicting defendant upon his plea of attempted felonious possession of a narcotic drug, unanimously reversed on the law, judgment of conviction vacated, the indictment reinstated, and the case remanded for a new hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing on the motion to suppress application was made by defendant for a copy of the Grand Jury testimony of the officer, the People’s only witness. The court denied the application, holding that defendant was not entitled thereto. Such refusal, especially under the circumstances of this case, constitutes reversible error (People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86; People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. Halup, 29 A D 2d 923; People v. Aitken, 30 A D 2d 812). In light of this disposition we do not now pass upon the other questions raised. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

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

Judgment convicting defendant upon his plea of attempted felonious possession of a narcotic drug, unanimously reversed on the law, judgment of conviction vacated, the indictment reinstated, and the case remanded for a new hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing on the motion to suppress application was made by defendant for a copy of the Grand Jury testimony of the officer, the People’s only witness. The court denied the application, holding that defendant was not entitled thereto. Such refusal, especially under the circumstances of this case, constitutes reversible error (People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86; People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. Halup, 29 A D 2d 923; People v. Aitken, 30 A D 2d 812). In light of this disposition we do not now pass upon the other questions raised. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wassel-nyappdiv-1968.