From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lewis

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 4, 1985
64 N.Y.2d 1031 (N.Y. 1985)

Opinion

Argued March 26, 1985

Decided April 4, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, James P. Griffin, J.

Kenneth Rabb, Michael J. Obus and Matthew Muraskin for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney ( Peter R. Shapiro and Anthony J. Girese of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The trial court, in its instructions, improperly removed from the jury's consideration all of the elements of the crimes charged except for that of identification. This error, preserved for our review by defense counsel's timely objection, his request for curative instructions and a motion made for a mistrial, deprived defendant of a fair trial, for "[n]o matter how conclusive the evidence * * * each of the * * * fundamental facts was for the jury to pass upon" ( People v Walker, 198 N.Y. 329, 334; see also, People v Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529). Although the admission by a defendant or his counsel of the existence of any of the elements of the crimes with which he was charged may have excused a court's removal of these elements from the jury's consideration ( see, People v Walker, supra, p 335; People v Brady, 16 N.Y.2d 186, 189-190) there was no such admission during the trial of this case.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Lewis

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 4, 1985
64 N.Y.2d 1031 (N.Y. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH LEWIS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 4, 1985

Citations

64 N.Y.2d 1031 (N.Y. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Muhammad

( People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342; Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v…

People v. Jagdharry

However, a new trial is required because of an error in the Supreme Court's charge to the jury. All the…