People v. Dominski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dominski

272 A.D.2d 955

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

DecidedJune 25, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 955 (People v. Dominski) 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. Dominski, 272 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed. All concur, except McCurn and Lo.ve, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial in the following memorandum: Facts from which the inference of defendant’s guilt is drawn must be established with certainty (People v. Bearden, 290 N. Y. 478, 480; People v. May, 290 N. Y. 369, 371; People v. Taddio, 292 N. Y. 488, 497). Examination of this record discloses that some of such facts in this case rested largely upon incompetent testimony. Lieutenant Shay’s testimony concerning the serial numbers of the stamps on the whiskey bottles is one example. Officer Cruickshank’s response to the question, “What did you think about that?”, referring to the footprints, is another. The record is replete with conclusory statements of witnesses offered in proof of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn. We reach the conclusion that the jury’s verdict rests in part, at least, upon incompetent testimony and that substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced. Even a guilty man is entitled to a fair trial and we cannot say upon this record that the defendant was accorded that protection which the law requires. (See People v. Sobieskoda, 235 N. Y. 411.) (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of burglary, third degree.) Present— Taylor, P. J., Dowling, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. All concur, except McCurn and Lo.ve, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial in the following memorandum: Facts from which the inference of defendant’s guilt is drawn must be established with certainty (People v. Bearden, 290 N. Y. 478, 480; People v. May, 290 N. Y. 369, 371; People v. Taddio, 292 N. Y. 488, 497). Examination of this record discloses that some of such facts in this case rested largely upon incompetent testimony. Lieutenant Shay’s testimony concerning the serial numbers of the stamps on the whiskey bottles is one example. Officer Cruickshank’s response to the question, “What did you think about that?”, referring to the footprints, is another. The record is replete with conclusory statements of witnesses offered in proof of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn. We reach the conclusion that the jury’s verdict rests in part, at least, upon incompetent testimony and that substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced. Even a guilty man is entitled to a fair trial and we cannot say upon this record that the defendant was accorded that protection which the law requires. (See People v. Sobieskoda, 235 N. Y. 411.) (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of burglary, third degree.) Present— Taylor, P. J., Dowling, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dominski-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack