People v. Woodrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodrow

18 A.D.2d 1050, 238 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1050 (People v. Woodrow) 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. Woodrow, 18 A.D.2d 1050, 238 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted. Memorandum: During the course of the trial a member of the State Police refreshed his recollection from time to time by referring to a report, ostensibly prepared by him, to his superior officer. Upon cross-examination the witness admitted the use of the report and defense counsel demanded the right to examine the report. Upon objection by the District Attorney, inspection was denied by the court except to the limited extent agreed to by the District Attorney. Defense counsel properly refused to accept the offer. [1051]*1051Under the circumstances such ruling was improper. (People v. Gezzo, 307 N. Y. 385, 392-394.) The defense counsel should have been accorded the right to examine the memorandum used to refresh the witness’ recollection. (Cf. Fisch, New York Evidence, § 333; People v. Gezzo, supra.) (Appeal from judgment of Herkimer County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted. Memorandum: During the course of the trial a member of the State Police refreshed his recollection from time to time by referring to a report, ostensibly prepared by him, to his superior officer. Upon cross-examination the witness admitted the use of the report and defense counsel demanded the right to examine the report. Upon objection by the District Attorney, inspection was denied by the court except to the limited extent agreed to by the District Attorney. Defense counsel properly refused to accept the offer. [1051]*1051Under the circumstances such ruling was improper. (People v. Gezzo, 307 N. Y. 385, 392-394.) The defense counsel should have been accorded the right to examine the memorandum used to refresh the witness’ recollection. (Cf. Fisch, New York Evidence, § 333; People v. Gezzo, supra.) (Appeal from judgment of Herkimer County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1050, 238 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodrow-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack