¶1Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum; The interests of justice require a new trial, because substantial rights of the defendant were aitevted by the reading of testimony to the jury, which had been stricken out, and by the court’s failure to instruct the jury with sufficient clarity that such testimony should be disregarded by them. (See People v. Smith, 172 N. Y. 210, 239; Ives v. Ellis, 169 N. Y. 85, 90; People v. Lupo, 305 N. Y. 448, 451; People v. Ochs, 3 N Y 2d 54.) (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court convicting defendant of the crime of robbery, first degree, on three counts.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
11 A.D.2d 906
People v. Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 1, 1960
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1960-07-01
Relies on People v. . Smith · Ives v. . Ellis · People v. Lupo
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1960-07-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1994
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →