People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

261 A.D. 1000, 26 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8501

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1000 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 261 A.D. 1000, 26 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting the defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first [1001]*1001degree and rape in the first degree, affirmed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Taylor, J. (dissenting): I dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial. The complaining witness admitted her inability to identify positively the defendant, a colored man, as her assailant. The prosecution’s case, in major part, rests upon claimed admissions of defendant to the police officer who, impersonating one under arrest for crime, occupied the same cell with defendant. The attitude and conduct of the trial judge were highly prejudicial to defendant and prevented a fair trial. This circumstance may not be overlooked, nor may it be passed under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case wherein the question of defendant’s guilt is a close one. A new trial is in order in the interest of justice. Close, J., concurs with Taylor, J.

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 defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first [1001]*1001degree and rape in the first degree, affirmed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Taylor, J. (dissenting): I dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial. The complaining witness admitted her inability to identify positively the defendant, a colored man, as her assailant. The prosecution’s case, in major part, rests upon claimed admissions of defendant to the police officer who, impersonating one under arrest for crime, occupied the same cell with defendant. The attitude and conduct of the trial judge were highly prejudicial to defendant and prevented a fair trial. This circumstance may not be overlooked, nor may it be passed under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case wherein the question of defendant’s guilt is a close one. A new trial is in order in the interest of justice. Close, J., concurs with Taylor, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1000, 26 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-1941.