People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

208 A.D. 854

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

DecidedApril 15, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D. 854 (People v. King) 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. King, 208 A.D. 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

The testimony at folios 539, 548, 572 and 595 of witnesses as to the character and reputation of the complaining witness and her non-drink ng habits, based upon their personal observation, was incompetent, and constitutes reversible error. (Hart v. McLaughlin, 51 App. Div. 411, 413; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 418; Chamberlayne Ev. § 3340.) The judgment of conviction of the Orange County Court is, therefore, reversed on the law, and a new trial is ordered. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

The testimony at folios 539, 548, 572 and 595 of witnesses as to the character and reputation of the complaining witness and her non-drink ng habits, based upon their personal observation, was incompetent, and constitutes reversible error. (Hart v. McLaughlin, 51 App. Div. 411, 413; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 418; Chamberlayne Ev. § 3340.) The judgment of conviction of the Orange County Court is, therefore, reversed on the law, and a new trial is ordered. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D. 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-king-nyappdiv-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack