TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Figueroa

The People of the State of New York v. Rene Figueroa

People v. Figueroa, 83 A.D.2d 564 (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
July 6, 1981
Citations
83 A.D.2d 564441 N.Y.S.2d 131981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14851

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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered March 28, 1979, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, *565 and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. Reversal is required because of the inadequacy of defendant’s representation at trial. The record reveals that the defense attorney: (1) failed to seek a pretrial Wade hearing, although identification was the primary issue in the case; (2) waived his client’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial on the bare assertions of the prosecutor that the undercover officer was still active; (3) failed to make appropriate objections and demonstrated ignorance of basic principles of criminal law and procedure; (4) elicited prejudicial testimony during the presentation of his defense, to wit, that nine packets containing a white substance were found beside defendant at the time of his arrest, evidence which could not have been elicited on the People’s case; (5) compounded his error on summation by inviting the jury to draw the inevitable inference that the white powder was a narcotic substance; (6) presented a defense which, at best, was internally contradictory; (7) waived an opening statement; (8) delivered a largely irrelevant and incoherent summation; and (9) made no statement on behalf of defendant at sentencing. This extensive, but by no means exhaustive, list of the trial defense attorney’s blunders demonstrates unequivocally that defendant did not receive a fair trial (see People v Barnes, 70 AD2d 882 ). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1984: 31985: 11987: 11997: 119842026peak 1984 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Morris100 A.D.2d 630 (1984) · Dissent
  2. People v. Wagner104 A.D.2d 457 (1984)
  3. People v. Lee129 A.D.2d 587 (1987)
  4. People v. Moore102 A.D.2d 898 (1984)
  5. People v. Andrew S.108 A.D.2d 935 (1985)
  6. People v. Schlageter238 A.D.2d 891 (1997)

Most recent

  1. People v. Schlageter238 A.D.2d 891 (1997)
  2. People v. Lee129 A.D.2d 587 (1987)
  3. People v. Andrew S.108 A.D.2d 935 (1985)
  4. People v. Wagner104 A.D.2d 457 (1984)
  5. People v. Moore102 A.D.2d 898 (1984)
  6. People v. Morris100 A.D.2d 630 (1984) · Dissent

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Barnes, 70 A.D.2d 882 (1979) 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