People v. Eaton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eaton

31 A.D.2d 730, 297 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2721

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 730 (People v. Eaton) 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. Eaton, 31 A.D.2d 730, 297 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We recognize it was error to prevent the witness Jennings from testifying that he did not observe defendant on the premises where the crime was committed on the evening in question. He was not an alibi witness subject to the requirement of section 295-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in view of the four alibi witnesses who did testify, and whose testimony was rejected by .the jury, we do not beEeve Jennings’ testimony, if received, would have varied .the result of the jury’s deliberations. In this circumstance, and upon aE the evidence before us, the sufficiency of which is not chaEenged by defendant, we beEeve the error was a harmless one which should be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court convicting defendant of rape, second degree.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Veeehio, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We recognize it was error to prevent the witness Jennings from testifying that he did not observe defendant on the premises where the crime was committed on the evening in question. He was not an alibi witness subject to the requirement of section 295-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in view of the four alibi witnesses who did testify, and whose testimony was rejected by .the jury, we do not beEeve Jennings’ testimony, if received, would have varied .the result of the jury’s deliberations. In this circumstance, and upon aE the evidence before us, the sufficiency of which is not chaEenged by defendant, we beEeve the error was a harmless one which should be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court convicting defendant of rape, second degree.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Veeehio, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 730, 297 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eaton-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack