People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harris

255 A.D. 1011, 8 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 1011 (People v. Harris) 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. Harris, 255 A.D. 1011, 8 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court of Kings county convicting the defendant of the crime of robbery in the first degree affirmed. On this record, error, if any, which survived did not affect the substantial rights of defendant. (See Code Crim. Proc. § 542, People v. Hayes, 140 N. Y. 484, 497; People v. Egan, 242 App. Div. 507, 509-511.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial in the following memorandum: Although (1) the verdict is supported amply by evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and although (2) no reversible error is presented by the trial judge’s coneededly erroneous charge as to the appellant’s omission to testify (People v. Forte, 277 N. Y. 440), appellant expressly acquiescing in the charge (Fitzpatrick v. International R. Co., 252 id. 127, 140-141; People v. Jackson, 196 id. 357, 362), the arrest of the appellant’s brother, a witness, in the presence of the jury, at the direction of the trial judge and over appellant’s protest and exception, was so prejudicial to the appellant in a substantial way that the interests of justice require that a new trial be granted. (People v. Criscuoli, 164 App. Div. 119, 123, 125. See, also, People v. Egan, 242 id. 507, and People v. Frasco, 187 id. 299.)

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

Judgment of the County Court of Kings county convicting the defendant of the crime of robbery in the first degree affirmed. On this record, error, if any, which survived did not affect the substantial rights of defendant. (See Code Crim. Proc. § 542, People v. Hayes, 140 N. Y. 484, 497; People v. Egan, 242 App. Div. 507, 509-511.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial in the following memorandum: Although (1) the verdict is supported amply by evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and although (2) no reversible error is presented by the trial judge’s coneededly erroneous charge as to the appellant’s omission to testify (People v. Forte, 277 N. Y. 440), appellant expressly acquiescing in the charge (Fitzpatrick v. International R. Co., 252 id. 127, 140-141; People v. Jackson, 196 id. 357, 362), the arrest of the appellant’s brother, a witness, in the presence of the jury, at the direction of the trial judge and over appellant’s protest and exception, was so prejudicial to the appellant in a substantial way that the interests of justice require that a new trial be granted. (People v. Criscuoli, 164 App. Div. 119, 123, 125. See, also, People v. Egan, 242 id. 507, and People v. Frasco, 187 id. 299.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 1011, 8 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harris-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack