People v. Downey

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Downey

178 N.E. 562, 257 N.Y. 370, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 866

DecidedNovember 17, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 178 N.E. 562 (People v. Downey) 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. Downey, 178 N.E. 562, 257 N.Y. 370, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 866 (N.Y. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*371 Per Curiam.

The evidence does not justify us in holding, in opposition to the verdict of the jury, that the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of his act, or not . to know that it was wrong. (Penal Law, § 1120.) Whether he was insane in such a sense or in such a degree as to render the imposition of the death penalty unjust or inexpedient is a question that will merit consideration if an application is made for executive clemency.

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., dissents upon the ground that the trial judge did not properly submit to the jury the question whether the homicide was from a deliberate and premediated design to kill, and Kellogg, J., dissents upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

*371 Per Curiam.

The evidence does not justify us in holding, in opposition to the verdict of the jury, that the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of his act, or not . to know that it was wrong. (Penal Law, § 1120.) Whether he was insane in such a sense or in such a degree as to render the imposition of the death penalty unjust or inexpedient is a question that will merit consideration if an application is made for executive clemency.

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., dissents upon the ground that the trial judge did not properly submit to the jury the question whether the homicide was from a deliberate and premediated design to kill, and Kellogg, J., dissents upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.E. 562, 257 N.Y. 370, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downey-ny-1931.