People v. Betsinger

New York Supreme Court

People v. Betsinger

21 N.Y.S. 136, 73 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 630, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 597

DecidedNovember 15, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 136 (People v. Betsinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Betsinger, 21 N.Y.S. 136, 73 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 630, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 597 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think it was error to admit the evidence of Alice Higley, of the conversations between her and the defendant in 1889.

2. Also in admitting the evidence of physicians who made an examination of Zada Young in 1890, and who gave evidence tending to indicate that upon such examination they found a broken hymen.

3. We think in the cross-examination of Sarah Betsinger, wife of defendant, improper questions were allowed to be put to her, touching the declarations alleged to have been made by her to Mrs. Richards. The conviction, judgment, and order must therefore be reversed.

Conviction, judgment, and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, and The clerk of Onondaga county directed to enter judgment and remit certified copy thereof, with the return and decision of this court, to the court of sessions of Onondaga county, pursuant to sections 547 and 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

PER CURIAM.

We think it was error to admit the evidence of Alice Higley, of the conversations between her and the defendant in 1889.

2. Also in admitting the evidence of physicians who made an examination of Zada Young in 1890, and who gave evidence tending to indicate that upon such examination they found a broken hymen.

3. We think in the cross-examination of Sarah Betsinger, wife of defendant, improper questions were allowed to be put to her, touching the declarations alleged to have been made by her to Mrs. Richards. The conviction, judgment, and order must therefore be reversed.

Conviction, judgment, and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, and The clerk of Onondaga county directed to enter judgment and remit certified copy thereof, with the return and decision of this court, to the court of sessions of Onondaga county, pursuant to sections 547 and 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 136, 73 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 630, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-betsinger-nysupct-1892.