People v. Connors
| Decision Date | 27 July 1981 |
| Citation | 441 N.Y.S.2d 523,83 A.D.2d 640 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Reginald CONNORS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Joseph Goffman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Michael J. Connolly, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before RABIN, J. P., and GULOTTA, COHALAN, and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 20, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for new trials in accordance herewith.
A robbery was committed on October 7, 1977 by three men, one of whom was armed with a handgun. Several hours thereafter and two miles away from the scene of the robbery, defendant was seen by police officers in possession of a handgun as he stood, otherwise, innocently, in front of a pool hall. Following his apprehension by the police, which was solely the result of his possession of the weapon, defendant was identified as one of the men who had committed the earlier robbery and, in fact, the one with the gun. Thereafter, defendant was separately indicted for the robbery and for possession of the weapon (several other crimes stemming from defendant's alleged resisting arrest were also charged with the possession count; defendant was acquitted of the other charges and they are not herein involved). Prior to trial, the People moved to consolidate the two indictments for trial. The motion was granted over the defendant's objection. Defendant has now appealed from his resulting conviction, contending, inter alia, that the joint trial of these indictments was improper and prejudicial. We agree.
Indictments may be consolidated for joint trial if the crimes alleged in each could be joined in a single indictment (CPL 200.20, subd. 4). Such joinder is permissible, inter alia, where the offenses arise out of the same transaction, or where they arise out of separate transactions and proof of either would be material and admissible as evidence in chief at the trial of the other (CPL 200.20, subd. 2, pars. Defendant's possession of the weapon was not a part of the same criminal transaction which resulted in the robbery; it was removed from the robbery both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...The court was thus required to sever the weapon counts (People v. Gadsden, 139 A.D.2d 925, 926, 528 N.Y.S.2d 955; People v. Connors, 83 A.D.2d 640, 641, 441 N.Y.S.2d 523). This conclusion, however, was not apparent from the face of the indictment. More importantly, the issue of defendant's ......
-
People v. De Vyver
...was not shown to be part of the same criminal transaction, it was not totally unrelated to either of these charges (People v. Connors, 83 A.D.2d 640, 441 N.Y.S.2d 523). Defendant attempted to reach for the weapon upon entry of the police at a time when he was with the unclad child in bed. T......
-
Chisholm v. Uhler
...a state statute, CPL § 200.20, and several state court cases, including People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 5 (N.Y. 1982) and People v. Connors, 83 A.D.2d 640, 641 (N.Y.App.Div. 1981). R. 55-59. Petitioner did not rely on any federal cases, nor do the state cases he relies on employ any arguments ......
-
People v. Masaguilar
...v. Singson, 40 A.D.3d 1015, 1016, 837 N.Y.S.2d 687; People v. Communiello, 180 A.D.2d 809, 809–810, 580 N.Y.S.2d 420; People v. Connors, 83 A.D.2d 640, 640–641, 441 N.Y.S.2d 523), the error was harmless, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant ......