People v. Hoh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hoh

254 A.D. 588, 3 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1938·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county convicting the defendant of the crime of violating section 1053-a of the Penal Law (criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death). Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. “ Culpable negligence ” was practically the sole contested issue. The defendant was entitled to clear instructions on that issue. The jury should have been clearly informed of its meaning and the standards of proof required should have been fully explained. (People v. Angelo, 246 N. Y. 451; People v. Pace, 220 App. Div. 495; People v. Grogan, 260 N. Y. 138.) This was not done. Furthermore, it was error to permit the police officer to give his opinion as to the fitness of the defendant to drive an automobile. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county convicting the defendant of the crime of violating section 1053-a of the Penal Law (criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death). Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. “ Culpable negligence ” was practically the sole contested issue. The defendant was entitled to clear instructions on that issue. The jury should have been clearly informed of its meaning and the standards of proof required should have been fully explained. (People v. Angelo, 246 N. Y. 451; People v. Pace, 220 App. Div. 495; People v. Grogan, 260 N. Y. 138.) This was not done. Furthermore, it was error to permit the police officer to give his opinion as to the fitness of the defendant to drive an automobile. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

People v. Hoh, 254 A.D. 588, 3 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

254 A.D. 588 (People v. Hoh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related