People v. De Maio

New York Court of Appeals

People v. De Maio

154 N.E. 616, 243 N.Y. 588, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 865

DecidedJuly 9, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 154 N.E. 616 (People v. De Maio) 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. De Maio, 154 N.E. 616, 243 N.Y. 588, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 865 (N.Y. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial justice committed error in part of his charge relating to corroborative evidence. Claim- has also been made that by constant interruptions he unduly interfered with the direct examination by defendant’s counsel of his client. The trial judge may properly interrupt at times to clear up obscure points but subject to the applicable rules of evidence counsel ordinarily ought to have a fair opportunity to examine in his own way the client or witness whom he has placed upon the stand. It is the province of cross-examination to correct any omissions of which counsel may be guilty in bringing out the facts or to test the accuracy of the witness. If the case were at all close these contentions would require careful consideration. The evidence of defendant’s guilt, however, is so convincing that we fed certain that the result of the trial was not changed by them and, therefore, we disregard them.

*589 The judgment of conviction should, therefore, be affirmed.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial justice committed error in part of his charge relating to corroborative evidence. Claim- has also been made that by constant interruptions he unduly interfered with the direct examination by defendant’s counsel of his client. The trial judge may properly interrupt at times to clear up obscure points but subject to the applicable rules of evidence counsel ordinarily ought to have a fair opportunity to examine in his own way the client or witness whom he has placed upon the stand. It is the province of cross-examination to correct any omissions of which counsel may be guilty in bringing out the facts or to test the accuracy of the witness. If the case were at all close these contentions would require careful consideration. The evidence of defendant’s guilt, however, is so convincing that we fed certain that the result of the trial was not changed by them and, therefore, we disregard them.

*589 The judgment of conviction should, therefore, be affirmed.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 N.E. 616, 243 N.Y. 588, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-maio-ny-1926.