People v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKinney

30 A.D.2d 948, 294 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 948 (People v. McKinney) 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. McKinney, 30 A.D.2d 948, 294 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment of conviction affirmed. In this nonjury trial of a youthful offender, we are of the opinion that defendant’s guilt was clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony challenged by the dissent first came about as part of the narration of the assault on the complaining witness. She was pregnant by defendant and was stabbed in the abdomen by him. She also described the knife with which she was stabbed and the first time she saw it in defendant’s possession. In any event, the testimony was not prejudicial. We do not believe that it affected the substantial rights of defendant. Consequently, we affirm under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer and McNally, JJ.; Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ., dissent as follows:

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. In this nonjury trial of a youthful offender, we are of the opinion that defendant’s guilt was clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony challenged by the dissent first came about as part of the narration of the assault on the complaining witness. She was pregnant by defendant and was stabbed in the abdomen by him. She also described the knife with which she was stabbed and the first time she saw it in defendant’s possession. In any event, the testimony was not prejudicial. We do not believe that it affected the substantial rights of defendant. Consequently, we affirm under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer and McNally, JJ.; Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ., dissent as follows:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 948, 294 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckinney-nyappdiv-1968.