People v. Fiore
| Decision Date | 06 December 1957 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. Emil FIORE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
Maurice W. Spiegel, New York City, for appellant.
Daniel V. Sullivan, Dist. Atty., Bronx County, by Milton Altschuler, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for respondent.
Before KOZICKE, P. J., and HELLER and ROSSBACH, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of speeding. At the conclusion of the testimony and after both sides had rested, the trial court examined appellant's driver's license which was not in evidence and commented on previous traffic violations therein set forth.
It was reversible error for the court to look at the license before conviction. Such practice should be scrupulously avoided in the future, since it is a clear violation of defendant's rights.
We do not say that the decision would have been different if the magistrate had not seen the defendant's license before rendering his decision. Suffice it to say that the case is criminal in nature and all safeguards in such cases should be observed.
Judgment of conviction reversed and new trial ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Covert
...the issues in such an orderly fashion there will be no doubt that this is a court 'where the least can be heard'. (Cf. People v. Fiore, 9 Misc.2d 468, 170 N.Y.S.2d 726; People v. Sperbeck, fn., 1 supra; People v. Baker, 2 Misc.2d 600, 153 N.Y.S.2d 339). Indeed, unless the defendant be heard......
-
People v. Stein
...former case the defendant is not to be labeled a criminal (People v. Kohler, supra, p. 698, 258 N.Y.S.2d at page 295; People v. Fiore, 9 Misc.2d 468, 170 N.Y.S.2d 726). Nevertheless, the legislature in its enactment of Chapter 878 of the Laws of 1965 has in fact drawn that very distinction ......
-
People v. Semonite
...of Buffalo v. Neubeck, 209 App.Div. 386, 389, 204 N.Y.S. 737, 739; People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131; People v. Fiore, 9 Misc.2d 468, 170 N.Y.S.2d 726). As to an oath, whatever the form adopted, it must be in the presence of an officer authorized to administer it and it mus......
- People v. Schroeder