People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams

29 A.D.2d 780, 287 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 780 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 29 A.D.2d 780, 287 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau 'County, rendered January 27, 1967, reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial granted. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, in view of the closely balanced issue of identification herein, the following errors were prejudicial and require a new trial: (a) The trial court charged, in answer to a juror’s question, that entry through an open window could constitute a “breaking” under the burglary statutes. This error was particularly significant since there was evidence that windows in the premises in question were open, (b) A police officer was permitted to testify as to a previous identification of defendant by a complainant (see, People v. Soban, 28 A D 2d 562). The error was compounded by the allusion to this testimony in the prosecutor’s summation, (e) A police officer was permitted to make a conclusory statement describing defendant’s behavior when he was walking rapidly down the street to the effect that he looked “like he wanted to get away from some place”. This error was compounded by the trial court’s specific approval of the statement in response to defendant’s motion to strike and by an allusion to it in the prosecutor’s summation. Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau 'County, rendered January 27, 1967, reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial granted. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, in view of the closely balanced issue of identification herein, the following errors were prejudicial and require a new trial: (a) The trial court charged, in answer to a juror’s question, that entry through an open window could constitute a “breaking” under the burglary statutes. This error was particularly significant since there was evidence that windows in the premises in question were open, (b) A police officer was permitted to testify as to a previous identification of defendant by a complainant (see, People v. Soban, 28 A D 2d 562). The error was compounded by the allusion to this testimony in the prosecutor’s summation, (e) A police officer was permitted to make a conclusory statement describing defendant’s behavior when he was walking rapidly down the street to the effect that he looked “like he wanted to get away from some place”. This error was compounded by the trial court’s specific approval of the statement in response to defendant’s motion to strike and by an allusion to it in the prosecutor’s summation. Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 780, 287 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack