From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roldos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1985
112 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 22, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).


Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact have been considered and determined to be established.

While the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury's verdict, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction because of our concern that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Although not objected to, the trial court's charge on the presumption of innocence did not adequately convey to the jury the import and significance of this fundamental safeguard (1 CJI [NY] 6.10 at 246). Moreover, the trial court failed to charge the jury that every element of the crimes with which the defendant had been charged were required to be established beyond a reasonable doubt (CPL 70.20; People v. Newman, 46 N.Y.2d 126; People v. Coleman, 70 A.D.2d 600). Finally, a dialogue continuing throughout the trial evidenced great hostility between the Trial Judge and defense counsel which may well have influenced the jury in its deliberations to defendant's detriment.

Under the circumstances, a new trial is in order. Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roldos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1985
112 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Roldos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILFREDO ROLDOS…

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

Date published: Jul 22, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Scarpelli

The court instructed the jury that it was not to consider any aspect of any such civil action, stating, inter…

People v. Roldos

In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless (see,…