People v. Chiodo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chiodo

246 A.D. 612

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 612 (People v. Chiodo) 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. Chiodo, 246 A.D. 612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of assault in the second degree rendered against him in the County Court of Queens county on the 8th day of January, 1935, under which the defendant was sentenced to State prison for a term of from two to four years. Judgment of the County Court of Queens county reversed on the law and the facts, indictment dismissed and defendant discharged. The verdict was contrary to the credible proof. According to the complainant’s own testimony there was no motive for the claimed assault. For more than four years after the alleged offense the complainant kept silent, in fact denying knowledge of the identity of his assailant, although the defendant was well known to him. There is no claim of intimidation during that period. Lazansky, P. J., Young and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Carswell and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of assault in the second degree rendered against him in the County Court of Queens county on the 8th day of January, 1935, under which the defendant was sentenced to State prison for a term of from two to four years. Judgment of the County Court of Queens county reversed on the law and the facts, indictment dismissed and defendant discharged. The verdict was contrary to the credible proof. According to the complainant’s own testimony there was no motive for the claimed assault. For more than four years after the alleged offense the complainant kept silent, in fact denying knowledge of the identity of his assailant, although the defendant was well known to him. There is no claim of intimidation during that period. Lazansky, P. J., Young and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Carswell and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chiodo-nyappdiv-1935.