# People v. Culhane

> New York Court of Appeals · October 23, 1973 · 33 N.Y.2d 90

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528373

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Charles Culhane and Gerald McGivern
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 23, 1973
- **Citations:** 33 N.Y.2d 90; 350 N.Y.S.2d 381; 305 N.E.2d 469; 71 A.L.R. 3d 956; 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 986
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breitel
- **Judges:** Breitel, Wachtler
- **Cited by:** 137 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528373

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that CPL 270.20 codified the common-law rule that required exhaustion of peremptory challenges to have aggrievement

## Opinion text

Breitel, J.
(concurring). I concur in result and in much of the majority opinion. In its wide-ranging reaches, however, I *111 cannot agree, particularly as they purport, beyond the necessities of this case, to explore the boundaries of a venireman’s relationship to the status of the defendant, the victim of the crime, or the witnesses for the prosecution. Nor is it necessary or appropriate to expand upon the permutations of possible publicity which may attend upon a new trial and dictate obliquely the discretionary disposition that should then be made. I regard it as highly dangerous to the resolution of future cases to attempt to restrict as does the majority opinion purport to do by obiter dicta the issues which may arise under the two heads mentioned. On the other hand, the relatively easy solution the circumstances of this case offer with respect to the earlier trial may or may not be available with respect to a new trial. Prophecy, even if posed hypothetically, is dangerous, unnecessary, and, therefore, inappropriate.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bbeitel, Jasen, Gabrielli and Jones concur with Judge Wachtler ; Judge Bbeitel concurs in a separate opinion in which Judges Jasen and Gabrielli concur.
Judgments of conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528373. Public record. Not legal advice.