People v. Wright

Decision Date29 October 1964
Citation253 N.Y.S.2d 653,22 A.D.2d 754
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence William WRIGHT, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Lawrence William Wright, in pro. per.

John C. Little, Jr., Rochester, for respondent (Nicholas P. Varlan, Rochester, of counsel).

Before BASTOW, J. P., and GOLDMAN, HENRY, NOONAN, and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

It is regrettable, and difficult to understand why, the District Attorney neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument on this appeal from a conviction after trial on a serious felony charge. It is the duty of every District Attorney to conduct all prosecutions for crimes or offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected (County Law, § 700, subd. 1). We feel this requires that he file a brief stating his position concerning an appeal taken by a defendant and to appear for argument unless both sides agree to submit. See Matter of Lewis v. Carter, 220 N.Y. 8, 115 N.E. 19. This apparent lack of concern is incomprehensible.

This case is clearly distinguishable from People v. Porcaro, 6 N.Y.2d 248, 189 N.Y.S.2d 194, 160 N.E.2d 488; People v. Oyola, 6 N.Y.2d 259, 189 N.Y.S.2d 203, 160 N.E.2d 494, and the cases cited therein in which the indictments or informations were dismissed. The court in each of those cases after considering the record before it which contained among other things not only the testimony of the infant complainant but also the testimony of the defendant denying the charges, held that as a matter of law the charges had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. We have reviewed the record in this case most carefully and in our judgment there is ample evidence to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly the conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. All concur, except NOONAN, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial, in the following Memorandum: The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial granted. The evidence offered by the prosecution was in many essential areas contradictory as well as confusing. It is unimportant that the defendant did not take the stand (which of course he was not required to do) since the testimony of the young complainant, together with that of his mother, was neither clear nor convincing in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Wright v. McMann
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 1966
    ......An eleven year old boy was apparently the complainant. People v. Wright, 16 N.Y.2d 736, 262 N. Y.S.2d 113, 209 N.E.2d 728. The judgment was affirmed October 29, 1964 with a short memo. People v. Wright, 22 A.D. 2d 754, 253 N.Y.S.2d 653 and by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1965. People v. Wright, supra. The Supreme Court denied certiorari June 6, 1966. ......
  • Wright v. McMann
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 19 Diciembre 1967
    ......They offend more than "some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism." Rochin v. People of California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). Indeed, the Assistant Attorney General of New York with commendable candor conceded during argument before us that the conditions, if they were as Wright alleged, were "terrible" and "should not be permitted to exist." . ......
  • Darvin M. v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 5 Mayo 1987
    ...... Nor is a revocation proceeding a "criminal action" (CPL 1.20[16] ) under the Criminal Procedure Law at which a "prosecutor" represents the People (CPL 1.20[31] ). A "criminal action" terminates upon sentencing (see, CPL 1.20[16]; cf., Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 467 N.Y.S.2d ...Pitsley, 37 A.D.2d 905, 325 N.Y.S.2d 451; People v. Wright, 22 A.D.2d 754, 253 N.Y.S.2d 653, affd. without opn. 16 N.Y.2d 736, 262 N.Y.S.2d 113, 209 N.E.2d 728, cert. denied 384 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1864, 16 ......
  • Murphy on Behalf of Rensselaer County v. Dwyer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 17 Mayo 1984
    ...... of Rensselaer County Court which appointed a special prosecutor to prepare a brief and argue an appeal by a defendant in the case entitled People v. Rediker, 97 A.D.2d 928, 470 N.Y.S.2d 734. We decline, however, to grant that portion of the petition which seeks an order directing respondent ...Pitsley, 37 A.D.2d 905, 325 N.Y.S.2d 451, People v. Sinclair, 28 A.D.2d 183, 184-185, 283 N.Y.S.2d 974 and People v. Wright, 22 A.D.2d 754, 253 N.Y.S.2d 653, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 736, 262 N.Y.S.2d 113, 209 N.E.2d 728, cert. den. 384 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1864, 16 L.Ed.2d 683, ......
  • 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