People v. Ditchik

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ditchik

41 N.E.2d 905, 288 N.Y. 95, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1060

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 41 N.E.2d 905 (People v. Ditchik) 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. Ditchik, 41 N.E.2d 905, 288 N.Y. 95, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1060 (N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our modification of the judgment of conviction requires the reversal of so much of the judgment as convicts the defendant, under count two of the indictment, of an attempt to commit the crime of bribery. (Penal Law, §§ 2, 378.) “ Acts in furtherance of a criminal project do not reach the stage of an attempt unless they carry the project forward within dangerous proximity to the criminal end to be attained.” (People v. Werblow, 241 N. Y. 55, 61, 62; People v. Collins, 234 N. Y. 355, 359, 360.) In an effort to establish the defendant’s guilt under count two the prosecution introduced testimony by three witnesses, each of whom was thereafter ruled by the trial justice to be an accomplice as a matter of law. We conclude that the testimony of the three witnesses mentioned above, when considered with the remaining evidence of record in the case, is not sufficient in law to warrant the conviction of the defendant under count two of the indictment. (Code Grim. Proc. §§ 395, 399.)

*97 The judgment of the Appellate Division in so far as it affirms the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant of an attempt to commit bribery (count two) should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that count; otherwise the judgment should be affirmed.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur!

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

Our modification of the judgment of conviction requires the reversal of so much of the judgment as convicts the defendant, under count two of the indictment, of an attempt to commit the crime of bribery. (Penal Law, §§ 2, 378.) “ Acts in furtherance of a criminal project do not reach the stage of an attempt unless they carry the project forward within dangerous proximity to the criminal end to be attained.” (People v. Werblow, 241 N. Y. 55, 61, 62; People v. Collins, 234 N. Y. 355, 359, 360.) In an effort to establish the defendant’s guilt under count two the prosecution introduced testimony by three witnesses, each of whom was thereafter ruled by the trial justice to be an accomplice as a matter of law. We conclude that the testimony of the three witnesses mentioned above, when considered with the remaining evidence of record in the case, is not sufficient in law to warrant the conviction of the defendant under count two of the indictment. (Code Grim. Proc. §§ 395, 399.)

*97 The judgment of the Appellate Division in so far as it affirms the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant of an attempt to commit bribery (count two) should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that count; otherwise the judgment should be affirmed.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur!

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.E.2d 905, 288 N.Y. 95, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ditchik-ny-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack