People v. Harrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harrell

281 A.D. 690, 117 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3262

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 690 (People v. Harrell) 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. Harrell, 281 A.D. 690, 117 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting appellant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, the proof was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, reversal is required by reason of the trial court’s refusal to charge as requested by defendant’s attorney that “the fact that the defendant was in the area with the accomplice at a time prior to the commission of the crime is not sufficient corroboration as required by the Statute ”, and that “ evidence that the crime has been committed in the way outlined by the accomplice ” was not such corroboration. (Cf. People v. Bishop, 270 App. Div. 133, and People v. Maione, 284 N. Y. 423.) We have examined the questions of fact and would affirm the judgment if it were not for the errors referred to, which, in our opinion, violated appellant’s substantial rights. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting appellant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, the proof was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, reversal is required by reason of the trial court’s refusal to charge as requested by defendant’s attorney that “the fact that the defendant was in the area with the accomplice at a time prior to the commission of the crime is not sufficient corroboration as required by the Statute ”, and that “ evidence that the crime has been committed in the way outlined by the accomplice ” was not such corroboration. (Cf. People v. Bishop, 270 App. Div. 133, and People v. Maione, 284 N. Y. 423.) We have examined the questions of fact and would affirm the judgment if it were not for the errors referred to, which, in our opinion, violated appellant’s substantial rights. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 690, 117 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harrell-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack