People v. Messina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Messina

278 A.D. 592, 102 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4049

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 1951·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting the appellant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and assault in the second degree, reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the exclusion by the trial court of proof by appellant’s attending physician of appellant’s physical condition at the time of the alleged crime, proffered to establish that appellant was then physically unable to commit the crime as described by the complainant, was a prejudicial error which affected substantial rights of appellant. (People v. Wells, 272 N. Y. 215.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting the appellant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and assault in the second degree, reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the exclusion by the trial court of proof by appellant’s attending physician of appellant’s physical condition at the time of the alleged crime, proffered to establish that appellant was then physically unable to commit the crime as described by the complainant, was a prejudicial error which affected substantial rights of appellant. (People v. Wells, 272 N. Y. 215.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

People v. Messina, 278 A.D. 592, 102 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

278 A.D. 592 (People v. Messina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related