From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1968
30 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

October 21, 1968


Order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered February 29, 1968, affirmed. The only allegation in the petition which would entitle appellant to coram nobis relief, if proved, was that the complaining witness had said off the record that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who robbed him and that the District Attorney, knowing of these statements, intentionally or unintentionally suppressed this evidence favorable to appellant. We can and do take judicial notice of the record on appeal in this court in People v. Ferguson ( 26 A.D.2d 772) and People v. Duff ( 26 A.D.2d 772) (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 30, and cases cited there). Appellant was tried together with Ferguson and Duff. The trial minutes establish that the complaining witness testified that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who had held him up. That record conclusively refutes appellant's claim. There is no obligation to assign counsel to assist in the prosecution of specious issues ( People ex rel. Williams v. La Vallee, 19 N.Y.2d 238, 241). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1968
30 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. IKE HILL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 21, 1968

Citations

30 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

People v. Richardson

It is also a "proper" case for appointment of counsel to indigent persons, upon request, where a court orders…

People v. Flanders

We thus conclude that the indictment was not rendered duplicitous by the court's instruction that the jury…