From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1965
24 A.D.2d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

December 6, 1965


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 21, 1964 after a jury trial, convicting him of the felonious sale of narcotics and the possession of narcotics as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury's verdict are affirmed. On this record, it is our opinion that the reopening of the case for further proof, after the jury had been deliberating for over three hours, coupled with the manner in which the reopened trial was conducted, constituted an improvident exercise of discretion by the trial court (cf. People v. Ferrone, 204 N.Y. 551), and that the effect of this procedure was a deprivation of defendant's right to a fair trial. Moreover, it was error to allow the prosecutor to tell the jury in his opening and summation, over objection, that the police had had defendant under observation for several days prior to the transaction that led to his arrest, and to allow a police officer to testify to that effect, similarly over objection (see People v. Penner, 283 App. Div. 731). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1965
24 A.D.2d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

People v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN GONZALEZ, Also…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 1965

Citations

24 A.D.2d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

(3) Either side could submit additional testimony in regard to the knife. Because of the apparent importance…

People v. Malave

People v. Mussenden, supra, at the last paragraph on p. 566). I further believe that it was reversible error…