People v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henderson

261 A.D. 1040, 25 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1040 (People v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 261 A.D. 1040, 25 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed, Memorandum: Our examination of the record convinces us that the defendants’ guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no prejudicial errors of law. There was no merger of the offenses charged in the indictment. (See People v. Tavormina, 257 N. Y. 84.) All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial in the following memorandum: The exclusion of the testimony in reference to the union contracts and in reference to the alleged bias of certain of the People’s witnesses, and certain errors in the charge which were not properly corrected, were sufficiently prejudicial to the rights of the defendants to call for reversal of the judgment of conviction and for a new trial. (The judgment convicts defendants of the crimes of conspiracy and assault, third degree.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed, Memorandum: Our examination of the record convinces us that the defendants’ guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no prejudicial errors of law. There was no merger of the offenses charged in the indictment. (See People v. Tavormina, 257 N. Y. 84.) All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and a new trial in the following memorandum: The exclusion of the testimony in reference to the union contracts and in reference to the alleged bias of certain of the People’s witnesses, and certain errors in the charge which were not properly corrected, were sufficiently prejudicial to the rights of the defendants to call for reversal of the judgment of conviction and for a new trial. (The judgment convicts defendants of the crimes of conspiracy and assault, third degree.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1040, 25 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack