People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 06 November 1972 |
| Citation | 40 A.D.2d 839,337 N.Y.S.2d 391 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Oscar WILSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before RABIN, P.J., and HOPKINS, MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered December 18, 1970, one (under indictment No. 2334/70) convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and the other (under indictment No. 2550/70) convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his guilty plea, and imposing sentence, to be served concurrently with the sentence under indictment No. 2334/70.
Judgment under indictment No. 2550/70 affirmed. No opinion.
Judgment under indictment No. 2334/70 reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial ordered under that indictment.
At the trial under indictment No. 2334/70 the complainant testified that he returned to his second-floor apartment between 12 A.M. and 12:30 A.M. on April 7, 1970 and found his door ajar. Upon entering, he was jumped by a man who sprang from the closet immediately to the right. He identified defendant in court as the perpetrator. The record indicates that the complainant spent about five hours in a bar, where he had several drinks, before returning home and that his apartment was illuminated on his return by a yellow-colored 60-watt bulb which was several feet from the front door. In addition, the complainant signed an affidavit shortly before the trial, prepared by a licensed investigator assigned by the court to aid the defense, wherein he stated: 'I never saw the face or any part of the person or persons standing behind the drapes.' The complaint admitted signing the affidavit, but denied ever having read its contents and claimed he was induced to sign it because of the investigator's representation that he was from the District Attorney's office.
Against this background, we are of the opinion that defendant did not receive a fair trial, due to several remarks made by the prosecutor in his summation. With regard to the complainant's testimony he stated to the jury: 'Albert Moore saw a face * * * made a mental image in his own mind about what that face looked like * * *. That is pretty true, also. * * * I guarantee you that you could come into cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bartolomeo
...N.E.2d 381; People v. Carter, 52 A.D.2d 829, 830, 384 N.Y.S.2d 167; People v. Davis, 51 A.D.2d 974, 380 N.Y.S.2d 303; People v. Wilson, 40 A.D.2d 839, 840, 337 N.Y.S.2d 391). However, the remarks in the case at bar, which were inappropriate, and as the People concede, would have been better......
-
People v. Dunnett
...his opinion that the defense was not credible (People v. Lovello, 1 N.Y.2d 436, 154 N.Y.S.2d 8, 136 N.E.2d 483; People v. Wilson, 40 A.D.2d 839--840, 337 N.Y.S.2d 391, 392--393). One of the issues at trial was the officer's ability to observe the sale transaction which took place about 15 f......
-
People v. Wasserman
...N.E.2d 483; People v. Morris, 42 A.D.2d 968, 347 N.Y.S.2d 975; People v. Williams, 40 A.D.2d 1023, 338 N.Y.S.2d 980; People v. Wilson, 40 A.D.2d 839, 337 N.Y.S.2d 391). Yet we find that some prosecutors continue this practice unabated, with alarming and disheartening Were we not reversing a......
-
People v. McNair
...don't believe that story. I don't think it's true' (see People v. Williams, 40 A.D.2d 1023, 338 N.Y.S.2d 980; see, also, People v. Wilson 40 A.D.2d 839, 337 N.Y.S.2d 391). ...