29 N.Y.2d at 696 cited at this page5 citing cases
- People v. Pettus, 2018 NY Slip Op 2366 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).published"Failure to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error," given that the case against defendant rested substantially — if not exclusively — upon the testimony of Dozier ( People v Jenner , 29 NY2d 695, 696-697 [1971] [citation omitted…
- People v. Medeiros, 116 A.D.3d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published “Failure to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error” (People v Jenner, 29 NY2d 695, 696-697 [1971] [citation omitted]; accord People v Minarich, 46 NY2d 970, 971 [1979]; see People v Adams, 307 AD2d at 478 ; People v Artis, 182 AD…
- People v. Sage, 11 N.E.3d 177 (N.Y. 2014).published We have found a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law where, for example, the witness pleads guilty to aiding the defendant in the commission of the crime (Sweet, 78 NY2d at 268 ), or otherwise confirms participation or assisting in…
- People v. Hines, 24 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedInitially, defendant argues that reversal is required because County Court failed to instruct the jury that King and Jeanette Hines, the tenant of the apartment in which defendant and the drugs were found, were accomplices as a matter of l…
- People v. Adams, 307 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).published County Court properly charged that Bennett and Leschorn, who pleaded guilty to burglarizing Dann’s store, were accomplices as a matter of law (see People v Jenner, 29 NY2d 695, 696-697 [1971]).
29 N.Y.2d at 697 “failure to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- People v. Van Denburg, 107 A.D.2d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1985).published
v.
Henry Jenner
Order reversed and a new trial ordered in the following memorandum : Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to sell dangerous drugs to a minor was based in part on testimony of codefendants named in the conspiracy indictment. Given the naming of the witnesses as coconspirators and defendants in the indictment, and emphasized by the evidence in the record connecting the codefendants with the conspiracy, the Trial Judge should havejnstructed the jury that the codefendants were accomplices as a matter of law and that, therefore, the defendant could not be convicted on their testimony without corroborating evidence (Code Crim. Pro., § 399; e.g., People v. Diaz, 19 N Y 2d 547, 549; People v. Kupperschmidt, 237 N. Y. 463, 465). Failure[*697] to so charge the jury was necessarily harmful error (People v. Diaz, 19 N Y 2d 547, 549-550, supra).
Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Breitel and Gibson. Judges Scileppi and Jasen dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: We would affirm. Even though the codefendants may be considered accomplices as a matter of law, there was still sufficient corroborative evidence tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime charged. The corroboration requirement of section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was fully met. (People v. Morhouse, 21 N Y 2d 66, 74.)