People v. Couture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Couture

277 A.D.2d 1144

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1144 (People v. Couture) 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. Couture, 277 A.D.2d 1144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting the appellant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, in four counts, reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered. It was [1145]*1145error to instruct the jury in effect (fol. 554) to find whether or not the appellant took the deposits without intention to fulfill the executory building contracts, and to refuse to charge as requested at folio 564. {People v. Karp, 298 N. Y. 213; People v. Forrester, 274 App. Div. 1006.) It was also error to receive the evidence offered by the assistant district attorney in charge of the complaint bureau as to the conversation had with the appellant’s attorney in the appellant’s presence, and for the trial assistant district attorney, in summation, to call attention to the failure of the defendant to testify. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting the appellant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, in four counts, reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered. It was [1145]*1145error to instruct the jury in effect (fol. 554) to find whether or not the appellant took the deposits without intention to fulfill the executory building contracts, and to refuse to charge as requested at folio 564. {People v. Karp, 298 N. Y. 213; People v. Forrester, 274 App. Div. 1006.) It was also error to receive the evidence offered by the assistant district attorney in charge of the complaint bureau as to the conversation had with the appellant’s attorney in the appellant’s presence, and for the trial assistant district attorney, in summation, to call attention to the failure of the defendant to testify. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-couture-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack