Legal Opinion · Dissent
People v. Huertas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 15, 1994PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Dissent
Balio and Boehm, JJ.
(dissenting in part). We are unable to agree that, because defendant did not actually testify at the trial of his codefendant, the purpose of his agreement with the District Attorney was not fulfilled. We, therefore, respectfully dissent.
As part of a negotiated plea bargain, defendant agreed to testify as a witness for the People at the trial of a codefendant. In return, the District Attorney promised to recommend, rather than to require, a sentence of IV2 years to life imprisonment as a condition of the plea. Immediately before the trial of the codefendant was to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- BROWN BROS. v. Beam Constr.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. McConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. Danny G.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Wagner v. DerecktorNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- In re Benjamin S.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. HillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- People v. LichtelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996