People v. Burke

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

People v. Burke

141 Misc. 778, 253 N.Y.S. 817, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1540

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 Misc. 778 (People v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Burke, 141 Misc. 778, 253 N.Y.S. 817, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1540 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Rosalsky, J.

The defendant Burke has been convicted of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The indictment charges that on May 1, 1926, Grant Reynolds, an unapprehended codefendant, and Burke, by means of false and fraudulent representations and pretenses, obtained from John Egan the sum of $3,000.

The defendant Burke now moves for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The principal ground urged is that the receipt dated May 1, 1926, for the sum of $3,000, the body of which is conceded to have been written by the complainant John Egan, had not been signed by G. J. Reynolds, but that the signature “ G. J. Reynolds ” is a forgery, and had been written by Egan.

The sole object of the application of the defendant for a new trial is to discredit and impeach the testimony of John Egan, the prin[779]*779cipal witness for the People. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that a motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, should not be granted where the evidence “ merely impeaches or contradicts the former evidence ” (People v. Priori, 164 N. Y. 459, 472; People v. Patrick, 182 id. 131, 179; People v. Eng Hing, 212 id. 373, 386; People v. Becker, 215 id. 126, 160), “ even where the impeachment is successful.” (People v. Eng Hing, supra, 393.)

Motion denied.

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

Rosalsky, J.

The defendant Burke has been convicted of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The indictment charges that on May 1, 1926, Grant Reynolds, an unapprehended codefendant, and Burke, by means of false and fraudulent representations and pretenses, obtained from John Egan the sum of $3,000.

The defendant Burke now moves for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The principal ground urged is that the receipt dated May 1, 1926, for the sum of $3,000, the body of which is conceded to have been written by the complainant John Egan, had not been signed by G. J. Reynolds, but that the signature “ G. J. Reynolds ” is a forgery, and had been written by Egan.

The sole object of the application of the defendant for a new trial is to discredit and impeach the testimony of John Egan, the prin[779]*779cipal witness for the People. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that a motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, should not be granted where the evidence “ merely impeaches or contradicts the former evidence ” (People v. Priori, 164 N. Y. 459, 472; People v. Patrick, 182 id. 131, 179; People v. Eng Hing, 212 id. 373, 386; People v. Becker, 215 id. 126, 160), “ even where the impeachment is successful.” (People v. Eng Hing, supra, 393.)

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 Misc. 778, 253 N.Y.S. 817, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burke-nygensess-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack