People v. Carroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carroll

249 A.D. 851, 292 N.Y.S. 774, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 851 (People v. Carroll) 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. Carroll, 249 A.D. 851, 292 N.Y.S. 774, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court of Suffolk county convicting defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree, and order denying motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The defendant did not have a fair trial. The remarks of the assistant district attorney and the reading in evidence of the former conviction in this action, as well also as the determination in this court by a divided vote, were highly prejudicial. In view of the fact that the ease has been twice tried before the county judge, it is suggested that the district attorney move for the removal of the cause to the Supreme Court. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to affirm. The guilt of the defendant was established by the verdicts of two juries on separate trials, so that I have no doubt on the subject. Under the circumstances, the errors were not prejudicial, and the judgment of conviction should be affirmed under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

Judgment of the County Court of Suffolk county convicting defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree, and order denying motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The defendant did not have a fair trial. The remarks of the assistant district attorney and the reading in evidence of the former conviction in this action, as well also as the determination in this court by a divided vote, were highly prejudicial. In view of the fact that the ease has been twice tried before the county judge, it is suggested that the district attorney move for the removal of the cause to the Supreme Court. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to affirm. The guilt of the defendant was established by the verdicts of two juries on separate trials, so that I have no doubt on the subject. Under the circumstances, the errors were not prejudicial, and the judgment of conviction should be affirmed under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 851, 292 N.Y.S. 774, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carroll-nyappdiv-1937.