From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hampton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1984
61 N.Y.2d 963 (N.Y. 1984)

Opinion

Argued February 21, 1984

Decided March 22, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, John J. Reilly, J.

Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Jeremy Gutman and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Winestine and William E. Hellerstein for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court charged the jury that if it found that either defendant did not act in concert with the other then it must acquit both defendants. When the jury found defendant Coley not guilty and the defendant Hampton guilty the verdict was clearly repugnant under the court's charge.

The determination as to the repugnancy of the verdict is made solely on the basis of the trial court's charge and not on the correctness of those instructions ( People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1). Because an examination of the instructions given to the jury in this case shows that the verdict returned was inherently contradictory, the trial court properly dismissed the charge against the defendant ( People v Carbonell, 40 N.Y.2d 948).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Hampton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1984
61 N.Y.2d 963 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Hampton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. JEFFREY HAMPTON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 22, 1984

Citations

61 N.Y.2d 963 (N.Y. 1984)
475 N.Y.S.2d 273
463 N.E.2d 614

Citing Cases

People v. Sanchez

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Gina Mignola and Amyjane Rettew of counsel), for…

People v. Sanchez

As reflected in the aforementioned definition of an accomplice, such mental culpability was an essential…