People v. Bai
| Decision Date | 30 December 1959 |
| Citation | 196 N.Y.S.2d 87,7 N.Y.2d 152,164 N.E.2d 387 |
| Parties | , 164 N.E.2d 387 PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony BAI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for appellant.
Manuel W. Levine, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Henry DeVine, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.
Appellant was convicted in the Nassau County District Court, affirmed by the County Court, of assault third degree in violation of subdivision 1 of section 244 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40. The affray seems to have arisen out of a dispute in the Teamsters Union. It occurred October 10, 1957 at the gasoline filling station of the Colonial Sand and Stone Company, at Cedarhurst, Long Island. The defendant tried the action for himself without a lawyer, although he asked for an adjournment in which to obtain one. He had been previously represented in the action by an attorney who withdrew, and he was given sufficient opportunity to obtain other counsel. There was no error in requiring him to proceed to trial. Other errors are presented, however, on account of which a new trial is necessary. Twenty-seven witnesses had been subpoenaed by defendant, who were excused by the Trial Judge at the opening of the trial. In a colloquy the defendant made clear that he wanted these witnesses to be present during the trial, but that he wished to have the trial postponed to enable him to procure legal counsel. He did disclaim the ability himself to examine these witnesses in court for the reason that he is not an attorney, but he later exhibited considerable forensic ability in conducting his trial, and we think that the Trial Judge erred in construing this statement as an authorization to the court to discharge these witnesses if defendant were forced to trial, as he was, without an attorney, or in concluding that their testimony, or the testimony of some of them, would not have been material and competent. It was also error for the court to state to the defendant, in the presence of the jury: 'If you buy this record on an appeal, every one of those words will cost you more.' The defendant correctly replied that it was for the jury to decide whether it would be appealed. Although in the charge there was an endeavor to correct this statement, the language of People v. Velleman, 247 App.Div. 172, 173, 286 N.Y.S. 918, applies here: 'The court's impression of the defendant's guilt stood out so strongly during the trial that its effect on the jury could not possibly have been cured by the formal instructions that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bonilla
...314, 315, 7 N.Y.S.2d 560; see, also, People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 154, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628; People v. Bai, 7 N.Y.2d 152, 155, 196 N.Y.S.2d 87, 164 N.E.2d 387). VI For the reasons I have stated, I would modify the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree to one of ass......
-
People v. Betillo
...v. Hill, 224 App.Div. 779, 230 N.Y.S. 891). Guilty or not guilty, a defendant is still entitled to a fair trial (People v. Bai, 7 N.Y.2d 152, 196 N.Y.S.2d 87, 164 N.E.2d 387), and regardless of guilt, even the criminal most deserving of punishment, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial ......
-
People v. Machado
...made available to defense counsel. See People v. Rosario, supra at 288-89, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881; People v. Bai, 7 N.Y.2d 152, 155, 196 N.Y.S.2d 87, 164 N.E.2d 387 (1959); People v. Dales, 309 N.Y. 97, 103, 127 N.E.2d 829 (1955); People v. Schainuck, 286 N.Y. 161, 36 N.E.2d 94 (1......
-
United States v. McMann
...625; aff'd 7 N.Y.2d 942, 198 N.Y.S.2d 314, 165 N.E.2d 877; cert. den. 363 U.S. 853, 80 S.Ct. 1634, 4 L.Ed.2d 1735; People v. Bai, 7 N.Y.2d 152, 196 N.Y.S.2d 87, 164 N.E.2d 387. Judge Fuld of the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal without I shall refer to some of the incidents ......