People v. Kauffman

239 A.D. 876
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the court should have received proof of the circumstances under which the defendant’s testimony before the grand jury was given, including the so-called agreement with the district attorney (People v. Kurtz, 42 Hun, 335, 3,44; State v. Berberick, 38 Mont. 423; Kirk v. Territory, 10 Okla. 46; Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569; State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510; People v. Joyce, 233 N. Y. 61), we think the error in view of the entire record could not have affected the result and may, therefore, be disregarded. All concur. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

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

People v. Kauffman, 239 A.D. 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

239 A.D. 876 (People v. Kauffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Luria
63 Misc. 2d 675 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1970)