From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Surita

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1963
18 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

April 23, 1963


Judgment of conviction of defendants for unlawful possession of narcotics as a felony, in violation of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 1751 of the Penal Law and with possession of narcotics as a misdemeanor, unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted. The trial court, on this post- Rosario trial, should have granted defense counsel's request for an examination of the minutes of the Grand Jury testimony of the witness Byrne, for use for cross-examination purposes; and, upon the record here, the denial of his request constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction. (See People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286; cf. People v. Askew, 15 A.D.2d 727.) Under the circumstances, we do not reach the question of whether or not on this pre- Mapp trial there was also reversible error in the receipt of the evidence now claimed by defendants to have been obtained in the course of an alleged unlawful search and seizure. (Cf. People v. Wade, 12 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Kelly, 12 N.Y.2d 248.) The questions with relation thereto should be reserved for determination on the evidence to be developed on a new trial which will now be conducted in the light of the decision of Mapp v. Ohio ( 367 U.S. 643).

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Surita

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1963
18 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

People v. Surita

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LOUIS SURITA and…

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

Date published: Apr 23, 1963

Citations

18 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
239 N.Y.S.2d 405

Citing Cases

United States v. Thomas

People v. Ostolaza, 19 A.D.2d 871, 244 N.Y.S.2d 96 (1st Dep't Nov. 19, 1963). See also People v. Surita, 18…

People v. Epps

What the officer had with him contained no details "as to how or [under] what circumstances the arrest took…