People v. McFarlan

Citation42 N.Y.2d 896,397 N.Y.S.2d 1003,366 N.E.2d 1357
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Decision Date16 June 1977
Parties, 366 N.E.2d 1357 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marilyn McFARLAN, Appellant.

Order reversed and the order of Supreme Court, New York County, granting defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment reinstated on the opinion by Judge Morris Aarons at Trial Term.

All concur except JASEN and COOKE, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm on the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division (52 A.D.2d 112, 383 N.Y.S.2d 4).

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • People v. Chin
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 1986
    ...N.E.2d 168; People v. Perri, 53 N.Y.2d 957, 441 N.Y.S.2d 444, 424 N.E.2d 278, affg. 72 A.D.2d 106, 423 N.Y.S.2d 674; People v. McFarlan, 42 N.Y.2d 896, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1003, revg. 52 A.D.2d 112, 383 N.Y.S.2d 4, on opn. at 89 Misc.2d 905, 396 N.Y.S.2d 559), and prosecutors are, therefore, under......
  • Special Prosecutor (Onondaga County) v. G. W.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • May 19, 1978
    ...or innocence, will automatically trigger transactional immunity. The suggestion is illogical. See, e. g., People v. McFarlan, 42 N.Y.2d 896, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 366 N.E.2d 1357 (1977), rev'g 52 A.D.2d 112, 383 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dept. 1976), on opinion below, 89 Misc.2d 905, 909, 396 N.Y.S.2d 5......
  • People v. Lieberman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • February 17, 1978
    ...to the crimes charged and immunity, therefore, did not obtain" (p. 114, 383 N.Y.S.2d p. 6). The Court of Appeals, 42 N.Y.2d 896, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 366 N.E.2d 1357, reversed the Appellate Division on the opinion of the lower court. Thus, based on the McFarlan ruling, the test in New York pr......
  • People v. Jorge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 24, 1997
    ...simple question regarding a seemingly innocuous fact--i.e., the witness' occupation" (Id. at 260, citing, People v. McFarlan, 42 N.Y.2d 896, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 366 N.E.2d 1357 [1977] ), and the prosecutor's burden to establish non-responsiveness is a high one (see, Brockway v. Monroe, 59 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT