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

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 588, 3 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hoh-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack