People ex rel. Baron v. Warden of City Prison

56 Misc. 108, 21 N.Y. Crim. 409, 106 N.Y.S. 139
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1907·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Ford, J.

Relator is held under a commitment of a city' magistrate, after examination, on a charge of felony. The crime charged is one in which, by statute, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated to justify a conviction. It was conceded by relator’s counsel upon the argument that the testimony of complainant upon the examination covered [109] all the requisite elements of the crime charged. Eelator’s counsel contends that there - was no legal corroboration. Upon that phase of the ease, I agree with him. Nevertheless I am of the opinion that the writ must be dismissed. In the case of People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 N. Y. 410, principally relied upon by relator, the court held that the writ should have been sustained because there was no legal evidence of the commission of the crime charged on account of lack of proof of intent — an essential element of the alleged larceny. Here there is no such hiatus. Lack of corroborative testimony becomes essential upon the trial only, and the Perkins case does not change the rule in this regard.

The writ is dismissed and the prisoner remanded.

Writ dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People ex rel. Baron v. Warden of City Prison, 56 Misc. 108, 21 N.Y. Crim. 409, 106 N.Y.S. 139 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1907).

56 Misc. 108 (People ex rel. Baron v. Warden of City Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Scarposi
69 Misc. 2d 264 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1972)
State v. Crank
142 P.2d 178 (Utah Supreme Court, 1943)
State Ex Rel. Jeffrey v. Tessmer
300 N.W. 7 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)