People v. Woodruff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodruff

33 A.D.2d 699, 306 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2855

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 699 (People v. Woodruff) 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. Woodruff, 33 A.D.2d 699, 306 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 22, 1967, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indefinite term in Elmira Reformatory. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact 'below have not been considered. The cumulation of error with respect to the prosecutor’s interrogation of police officer Boyce and his remark made in the opening to the jury, both of which erroneously referred to the complaining witness’ pretrial identification of appellant, served to deprive appellant of a fair trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 22, 1967, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indefinite term in Elmira Reformatory. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact 'below have not been considered. The cumulation of error with respect to the prosecutor’s interrogation of police officer Boyce and his remark made in the opening to the jury, both of which erroneously referred to the complaining witness’ pretrial identification of appellant, served to deprive appellant of a fair trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 699, 306 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodruff-nyappdiv-1969.