People v. Cammarata

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Cammarata

196 N.E.2d 569, 13 N.Y.2d 1152

DecidedJanuary 23, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.E.2d 569 (People v. Cammarata) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cammarata, 196 N.E.2d 569, 13 N.Y.2d 1152 (N.Y. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered upon the ground that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude the alleged conversation between defendant and the police inspector.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Bergan. Judge Scileppi dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm. In my opinion, the testimony with regard to a particular [1154]*1154telephone conversation offered by defendant and excluded by the trial court was prima facie self-serving and on that ground inadmissible (Richardson, Evidence, §§ 377-378 [8th ed., 1955]). Thus it was not error for the trial court to exclude the same where defendant failed to make known to that court the limited purpose of the offer now suggested, viz., to show defendant’s state of mind (Bonsall v. Shiverick, 229 N. Y. 518; Matter of Bateman, 145 N. Y. 623; see, also, Tomlinson v. Bean, 26 Wn. 2d 354; Roach v. Snedigar, 76 S. D. 63). Moreover, this contention was not raised in the courts below but was advanced for the first time in this court (see Flagg v. Nichols, 307 N. Y. 96, 99).

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

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered upon the ground that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude the alleged conversation between defendant and the police inspector.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Bergan. Judge Scileppi dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm. In my opinion, the testimony with regard to a particular [1154]*1154telephone conversation offered by defendant and excluded by the trial court was prima facie self-serving and on that ground inadmissible (Richardson, Evidence, §§ 377-378 [8th ed., 1955]). Thus it was not error for the trial court to exclude the same where defendant failed to make known to that court the limited purpose of the offer now suggested, viz., to show defendant’s state of mind (Bonsall v. Shiverick, 229 N. Y. 518; Matter of Bateman, 145 N. Y. 623; see, also, Tomlinson v. Bean, 26 Wn. 2d 354; Roach v. Snedigar, 76 S. D. 63). Moreover, this contention was not raised in the courts below but was advanced for the first time in this court (see Flagg v. Nichols, 307 N. Y. 96, 99).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 569, 13 N.Y.2d 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cammarata-ny-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack