From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 29, 1974
45 A.D.2d 1043 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Summary

In People v. Valentine, 45 A.D.2d 1043, 358 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1974), a conviction was reversed due to the absence of counsel during the original instruction of the jury, despite the fact that there was present a substitute counsel.

Summary of this case from Hoskins v. State

Opinion

July 29, 1974


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 2, 1971, convicting him, after trial, of felony murder and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. It was error for the court to have permitted trial counsel to absent himself during the charge to the jury. The defendant was harmed by the failure of counsel's substitute to request a charge, recognizing the ambiguity of evidence of flight and instructing the jury as to its weakness as an indication of guilt ( People v. Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, 304). In addition, the granting of a new trial to a codefendant herein ( People v. Sepulveda, 44 A.D.2d 846) warrants a reversal as to the instant defendant. Gulotta, P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 29, 1974
45 A.D.2d 1043 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

In People v. Valentine, 45 A.D.2d 1043, 358 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1974), a conviction was reversed due to the absence of counsel during the original instruction of the jury, despite the fact that there was present a substitute counsel.

Summary of this case from Hoskins v. State
Case details for

People v. Valentine

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR VALENTINE…

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

Date published: Jul 29, 1974

Citations

45 A.D.2d 1043 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Citing Cases

Hoskins v. State

However, this did not serve to fulfill the defendant's constitutional right to counsel. In People v.…