From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vincenty

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 21, 1986
68 N.Y.2d 899 (N.Y. 1986)

Opinion

Decided October 21, 1986

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, David Levy, J.

Barry S. Stendig and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.

Mario Merola, District Attorney (Richard E. Haftel of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

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

The Trial Judge distributed portions of his preliminary instructions to the jury in writing, which included a written outline of the elements of robbery in the first degree. Defendant's objection to this procedure was preserved for this court's review as it was sufficiently specific (see, People v Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249, 254; People v West, 56 N.Y.2d 662, 663). This procedure violated defendant's right to a fair trial, and the error cannot be considered harmless (see, People v Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur; Judge KAYE taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Vincenty

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 21, 1986
68 N.Y.2d 899 (N.Y. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Vincenty

Case Details

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

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 21, 1986

Citations

68 N.Y.2d 899 (N.Y. 1986)
508 N.Y.S.2d 938
501 N.E.2d 587

Citing Cases

People v. Sotomayer

Thus, in both cases, the submission created the potential for prejudice by inviting the jury to place undue…

People v. Joy

Relying upon People v Maye ( 58 A.D.2d 782) and again over the prosecutor's objection, the court submitted to…