From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coleman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1977
366 N.E.2d 78 (N.Y. 1977)

Opinion

Argued April 27, 1977

Decided June 2, 1977

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, GEORGE H. NICOLS, J.

Daniel J. Bernstein and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Michael J. Halberstam of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

While the conduct of the Trial Judge cannot be described as commendable, in our view neither were his intrusions (to the extent that protest was made, expressly or by reasonable implication) such as to work a denial of defendant's right to a fair trial. Nor is there any substance to defendant's claim that subdivision 4 of section 160.15 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional (People v Clark, 41 N.Y.2d 612). We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Coleman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1977
366 N.E.2d 78 (N.Y. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT COLEMAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1977

Citations

366 N.E.2d 78 (N.Y. 1977)
366 N.E.2d 78
397 N.Y.S.2d 378

Citing Cases

People v. Wise

Indeed, the post- Patterson cases under section 125.27 (subd 2, par [a]) of the Penal Law have gone the other…

People v. White

The identical issue raised by defendant challenging the constitutionality of subdivision 4 of section 160.15…