People ex rel. Kiebrick v. Roosevelt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Kiebrick v. Roosevelt

73 N.Y. St. Rep. 113

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 113 (People ex rel. Kiebrick v. Roosevelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Kiebrick v. Roosevelt, 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

BARRETT, J.

The respondents, in their return, specifically state that, after the relator’s trial had ended, they considered his record upon the question of guilt. It was upon “due consideration” (so they say) of this record, in connection with the testimony, that they determined that he “was guilty as charged.” This was clearly erroneous. People ex rel. McAleer v. French, 119 N. Y. 505; 30 St. Rep. 72; People ex rel. Roe v. MacLean, 57 Hun, 141; 32 St. Rep. 831 The record was not introduced upon the trial, and the accused had no’ opportunity of explaining it. It was read and considered in his absence and without his knowledge; and certainly it was highly prejudicial, for there was a close question of veracity between the relator, the relator’s witnesses, and the complaining witness. It may well' be that, notwithstanding the numerical preponderance of testimony upon the relator’s side, this record turned the scale. If the record should be treated as the knowledge of the commissioners, in that it is part of. the records of the department, still it was improperly considered, for, as was [114]*114said in People v. French, supra, “they may neither act upon their own knowledge nor supplement the evidence with their Own knowledge."

The proceedings had should be annulled, and the relator reinstated, with $50 costs and disbursements.

All concur.

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

BARRETT, J.

The respondents, in their return, specifically state that, after the relator’s trial had ended, they considered his record upon the question of guilt. It was upon “due consideration” (so they say) of this record, in connection with the testimony, that they determined that he “was guilty as charged.” This was clearly erroneous. People ex rel. McAleer v. French, 119 N. Y. 505; 30 St. Rep. 72; People ex rel. Roe v. MacLean, 57 Hun, 141; 32 St. Rep. 831 The record was not introduced upon the trial, and the accused had no’ opportunity of explaining it. It was read and considered in his absence and without his knowledge; and certainly it was highly prejudicial, for there was a close question of veracity between the relator, the relator’s witnesses, and the complaining witness. It may well' be that, notwithstanding the numerical preponderance of testimony upon the relator’s side, this record turned the scale. If the record should be treated as the knowledge of the commissioners, in that it is part of. the records of the department, still it was improperly considered, for, as was [114]*114said in People v. French, supra, “they may neither act upon their own knowledge nor supplement the evidence with their Own knowledge."

The proceedings had should be annulled, and the relator reinstated, with $50 costs and disbursements.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.Y. St. Rep. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-kiebrick-v-roosevelt-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack