People v. Colon
| Decision Date | 04 December 1973 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edio COLON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. M. Fallick, New York City, for respondent.
P. I. Beane, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before McGIVERN, J.P., and MARKEWICH, MURPHY, LANE and STEUER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered January 7, 1972, convicting the defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and possession of a weapon as a felony, committed against the complainant Betancourt (Indictment No. 3633/70), unanimously reversed on the law and in the interest of justice and the indictment dismissed.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered January 7, 1972, convicting the defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and possession of a weapon as a felony, committed against the complainants Cordero and Sanchez (Indictments Nos. 5480/70 and 5929/70), unanimously affirmed.
The defendant was indicted and charged with commission of crimes against three separate individuals on three separate occasions.
The crimes allegedly committed against complainants Cordero and Sanchez were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we find, and the People concede, that it was error not to dismiss those counts relating to the complainant Betancourt. The preliminary hearing minutes relating to the crimes committed against complainant Betancourt were timely requested but were not given to defense counsel, though not through any lack of diligence on the part of the District Attorney. This constituted reversible error (People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730; cf. People v. Sanders, 31 N.Y.2d 463, 341 N.Y.S.2d 305, 293 N.E.2d 555; People v. West, 29 N.Y.2d 728, 326 N.Y.S.2d 388, 276 N.E.2d 226). Cross-examination by defense counsel was severely hampered by the absence of these minutes and, in the interest of justice, the indictment must be dismissed as to those counts.
We must note, however, that were it not for the fact that the cases involving complainants Cordero and Sanchez were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the sentences imposed were to run concurrently, we would remand for a hearing to determine whether or not due diligence was exercised by all parties concerned to obtain the preliminary hearing minutes, whether the minutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivera
...necessarily guarantee him a perfect trial or a perfect appeal. (Cf. People v. Bowden, 48 A.D.2d 962, 369 N.Y.S.2d 558; People v. Colon, 43 A.D.2d 676, 350 N.Y.S.2d 141; People v. Hicks, 85 Misc.2d 649, 381 N.Y.S.2d In such circumstances, a hearing to determine, among other things, the avail......
-
People v. Hicks
...of the District Attorney, the defendant's ability to conduct an effective cross-examination may be hampered (People v. Colon, 43 A.D.2d 676, 350 N.Y.S.2d 141 (1st Dept., 1973)). A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair trial, but this does not mean a perfect trial (People v. Bow......
-
People v. Fleishman
...155 U.S.App.D.C. 223, 476 F.2d 1170. The only Appellate decision in this jurisdiction dismissing the indictment (People v. Colon, 43 A.D.2d 676, 350 N.Y.S.2d 141) was founded upon the basis that the defendant in that case, having been convicted of two other crimes in which the loss of evide......
- Kalabovic v. Fort Place Co-op., Inc.