People v. Burman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burman

253 A.D. 292, 2 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8421

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 292 (People v. Burman) 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. Burman, 253 A.D. 292, 2 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We think the court sufficiently instructed the jury that they might not convict the defendants if the complaining witness lost his money in an honest card game, but that they might convict if the card game was a sham, or as the court expressed it “ a flim-flam.” Although this expression is one which is not commonly encountered in judicial proceedings, we think its significance was intelligible to the average juryman. If not clear, it was the right of the defendant to propose a request which the court could properly have charged. Each request proposed by the defendant reveals imperfections which precluded such a charge on account of the omission of any reference to some essential question of fact.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes for reversal.

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

Per Curiam.

We think the court sufficiently instructed the jury that they might not convict the defendants if the complaining witness lost his money in an honest card game, but that they might convict if the card game was a sham, or as the court expressed it “ a flim-flam.” Although this expression is one which is not commonly encountered in judicial proceedings, we think its significance was intelligible to the average juryman. If not clear, it was the right of the defendant to propose a request which the court could properly have charged. Each request proposed by the defendant reveals imperfections which precluded such a charge on account of the omission of any reference to some essential question of fact.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes for reversal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 292, 2 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burman-nyappdiv-1938.