TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Stanley

The People of the State of New York v. James Stanley

People v. Stanley, 81 A.D.2d 842 (1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 4, 1981
Citations
81 A.D.2d 842438 N.Y.S.2d 8481981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11518

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered November 14, 1978, convicting him of assault in the second degree, menacing and harassment, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, in part, of certain motions. Judgment reversed, on the law, defendant’s omnibus motion granted to the extent that the first three counts of the indictment are directed to be tried separately from the remaining three counts, his oral *843 motion seeking pretrial disclosure of a written statement given to the District Attorney by defense witness Willie Norton granted, pursuant to CPL 240.20 (subd 1, par [g]) and 240.40 (subd 1, par [a]), and new trials ordered. The first three counts and last three counts of the indictment covered two separate and unrelated incidents on March 10, 1978, in which defendant allegedly engaged in assaultive and threatening behavior with a knife. Although the crimes charged were joinable as the “same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20, subd 2, par [c]; see People v Lombardi, 20 NY2d 266, 269 ; People v McDowell, 35 AD2d 611, 612 ), that part of defendant’s motion which was for a severance should have been granted. Separate trials should have been ordered pursuant to CPL 200.20 (subd 3). Both incidents involved drunken arguments and the use of a knife. There was thus demonstrated a strong possibility of a conviction by reason of the cumulative effect of the evidence rather than by its separate and distinct relevance to each incident. (See People v Forest, 50 AD2d 260, 262 .) Furthermore, it appears that the prior written statement by defense witness Willie Norton contained exculpatory evidence regarding the first three counts of the indictment. It was error, therefore, to have denied pretrial disclosure of this statement. (See Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 .) Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2018: 12021: 22023: 12025: 220182026peak 2021 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. S.2025 NY Slip Op 51867(U) (Piermont Vill. Just. Ct. 2025)
  2. People v. Mero221 A.D.3d 1242 (2023)
  3. People v. Santiago2021 NY Slip Op 00130
  4. People v. Martinez2018 NY Slip Op 7329
  5. People v. Rhames2021 NY Slip Op 34142(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 2021)
  6. People v. Spinks2025 NY Slip Op 04303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)

Most recent

  1. People v. S.2025 NY Slip Op 51867(U) (Piermont Vill. Just. Ct. 2025)
  2. People v. Spinks2025 NY Slip Op 04303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)
  3. People v. Mero221 A.D.3d 1242 (2023)
  4. People v. Rhames2021 NY Slip Op 34142(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 2021)
  5. People v. Santiago2021 NY Slip Op 00130
  6. People v. Martinez2018 NY Slip Op 7329

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 30,396
People v. Lombardi, 229 N.E.2d 206 (N.Y. 1967) 118
People v. Forest, 50 A.D.2d 260 (1975) 37
People v. McDowell, 35 A.D.2d 611 (1970) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list