People v. Barile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barile

239 A.D. 637, 268 N.Y.S. 127, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 637 (People v. Barile) 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. Barile, 239 A.D. 637, 268 N.Y.S. 127, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant has been convicted of the crime of blackmail in that he sent to a woman a letter threatening injury to her and her property unless she delivered to defendant $5,000. There is no evidence connecting defendant with the writing or the sending of the letter. The conviction is based in the main upon a claimed temporary acceptance by defendant at the time and place specified in the letter of a package prepared to simulate a parcel containing money and upon statements and conduct of defendant at this time and thereafter. The package transaction took place at two o’clock in the afternoon upon an open public highway with a clear view for a long distance in all directions.

The district attorney offered in evidence the “ finger print criminal record ” of defendant; and after a colloquy the offer was withdrawn upon its appearing that defendant had been involved in minor delinquencies only. The People also brought about the presentation of evidence that prior to the alleged commission of the crime charged foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property owned by defendant’s mother had been commenced. Defendant had no interest in the property. Again, one of defendant’s witnesses, a Mr. Brandt, testified incidentally that .on a certain occasion a Mr. Whittom (not called as a witness upon the trial) was with Brandt [638]*638on an automobile trip. On cross-examination the district attorney said to the witness: “Now you said William J. Whittom was with you?” The witness: “Yes sir.” The district attorney: “He is the same man who was arraigned in court here yesterday morning?” These three trial episodes were materially harmful to defendant. And since it is a grave question whether the burden of proof resting upon the People has been sustained, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice demand a new trial.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted.

All concur; Thompson, J., in result.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant has been convicted of the crime of blackmail in that he sent to a woman a letter threatening injury to her and her property unless she delivered to defendant $5,000. There is no evidence connecting defendant with the writing or the sending of the letter. The conviction is based in the main upon a claimed temporary acceptance by defendant at the time and place specified in the letter of a package prepared to simulate a parcel containing money and upon statements and conduct of defendant at this time and thereafter. The package transaction took place at two o’clock in the afternoon upon an open public highway with a clear view for a long distance in all directions.

The district attorney offered in evidence the “ finger print criminal record ” of defendant; and after a colloquy the offer was withdrawn upon its appearing that defendant had been involved in minor delinquencies only. The People also brought about the presentation of evidence that prior to the alleged commission of the crime charged foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property owned by defendant’s mother had been commenced. Defendant had no interest in the property. Again, one of defendant’s witnesses, a Mr. Brandt, testified incidentally that .on a certain occasion a Mr. Whittom (not called as a witness upon the trial) was with Brandt [638]*638on an automobile trip. On cross-examination the district attorney said to the witness: “Now you said William J. Whittom was with you?” The witness: “Yes sir.” The district attorney: “He is the same man who was arraigned in court here yesterday morning?” These three trial episodes were materially harmful to defendant. And since it is a grave question whether the burden of proof resting upon the People has been sustained, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice demand a new trial.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted.

All concur; Thompson, J., in result.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 637, 268 N.Y.S. 127, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barile-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack