People v. Draper

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Draper

109 N.E.2d 342, 304 N.Y. 799, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 992

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 N.E.2d 342 (People v. Draper) 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. Draper, 109 N.E.2d 342, 304 N.Y. 799, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 992 (N.Y. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Loitghban, Ch. J., and Fboessel, J., dissent and vote to order a new trial in the following memorandum: The defendant’s constitutional protection against compulsory self incrimination was invaded when the trial prosecutor commented adversely and at length upon the defendant’s refusal to take a truth serum test (see People v. Forte, 277 N. Y. 440; 8 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], §§ 2272-2273). The further comment of the District Attorney to the jury that they should not be misled by any idea that this defendant, who pleaded insanity, may be confined permanently to a hospital, thus suggesting that he might be released, was also improper. [See 304 N. Y. 881.]

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Loitghban, Ch. J., and Fboessel, J., dissent and vote to order a new trial in the following memorandum: The defendant’s constitutional protection against compulsory self incrimination was invaded when the trial prosecutor commented adversely and at length upon the defendant’s refusal to take a truth serum test (see People v. Forte, 277 N. Y. 440; 8 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], §§ 2272-2273). The further comment of the District Attorney to the jury that they should not be misled by any idea that this defendant, who pleaded insanity, may be confined permanently to a hospital, thus suggesting that he might be released, was also improper. [See 304 N. Y. 881.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.E.2d 342, 304 N.Y. 799, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-draper-ny-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack