People v. Meers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meers

255 A.D. 941, 8 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 941 (People v. Meers) 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. Meers, 255 A.D. 941, 8 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: The principal question raised in this case was the identity of the defendant as one of three persons participating in a robbery in a retad store. A question of fact was presented. The identification of the defendant as one of the robbers by two witnesses with ample opportunity to observe the participants at the time of the robbery was clear and convincing. The defense was an alibi. The question was one for the jury and there is no reason on the record why the conviction should be disturbed. Neither do we think there was error in the denial of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The additional proof was not in our opinion sufficient to warrant a belief that its consideration would affect the result. No objection was offered to the reception of the testimony as to the presence of the defendant at the store on a certain previous occasion. AH concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of robbery, first degree.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: The principal question raised in this case was the identity of the defendant as one of three persons participating in a robbery in a retad store. A question of fact was presented. The identification of the defendant as one of the robbers by two witnesses with ample opportunity to observe the participants at the time of the robbery was clear and convincing. The defense was an alibi. The question was one for the jury and there is no reason on the record why the conviction should be disturbed. Neither do we think there was error in the denial of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The additional proof was not in our opinion sufficient to warrant a belief that its consideration would affect the result. No objection was offered to the reception of the testimony as to the presence of the defendant at the store on a certain previous occasion. AH concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of robbery, first degree.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 941, 8 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meers-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack