People v. Dziobecki

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dziobecki

147 N.E.2d 478, 3 N.Y.2d 997

DecidedDecember 6, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 147 N.E.2d 478 (People v. Dziobecki) 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. Dziobecki, 147 N.E.2d 478, 3 N.Y.2d 997 (N.Y. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the admission of evidence relating to the Orsino transaction, and as to the statement made by defendant’s wife, was error. In our view, these errors affected defendant’s substantial rights, and may not be disregarded on the ground that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is convincing, or that the right result has been reached (People v. Ochs, 3 N Y 2d 54, 57; People v. Mleczko, 298 N. Y. 153, 162; People v. Levan, 295 N. Y. 26; People v. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 619).

References by the Trial Judge to the erroneously admitted evidence, in a case where guilt rested upon inference, may have blurred the true issue in the minds of the jury. We have no right to speculate as to what the jury would have done without the erroneously received evidence.

The judgments should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the admission of evidence relating to the Orsino transaction, and as to the statement made by defendant’s wife, was error. In our view, these errors affected defendant’s substantial rights, and may not be disregarded on the ground that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is convincing, or that the right result has been reached (People v. Ochs, 3 N Y 2d 54, 57; People v. Mleczko, 298 N. Y. 153, 162; People v. Levan, 295 N. Y. 26; People v. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 619).

References by the Trial Judge to the erroneously admitted evidence, in a case where guilt rested upon inference, may have blurred the true issue in the minds of the jury. We have no right to speculate as to what the jury would have done without the erroneously received evidence.

The judgments should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.E.2d 478, 3 N.Y.2d 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dziobecki-ny-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack