People v. Akey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Akey

254 A.D. 625, 3 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 625 (People v. Akey) 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 v. Akey, 254 A.D. 625, 3 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, as a second offense. The evidence upon which the conviction was obtained consisted largely of an alleged confession, and the oral testimony of two State troopers who were present when the alleged confession was made. They testified to his statements as admissions. There is sufficient additional proof to satisfy the requirements of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The admission made by defendant’s companion, but not in defendant’s presence, was inadmissible, but not sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal, as it agreed with defendant’s statement or confession. Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, as a second offense. The evidence upon which the conviction was obtained consisted largely of an alleged confession, and the oral testimony of two State troopers who were present when the alleged confession was made. They testified to his statements as admissions. There is sufficient additional proof to satisfy the requirements of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The admission made by defendant’s companion, but not in defendant’s presence, was inadmissible, but not sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal, as it agreed with defendant’s statement or confession. Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 625, 3 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-akey-nyappdiv-1938.