People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moore

261 A.D. 876, 25 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7856

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 876 (People v. Moore) 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. Moore, 261 A.D. 876, 25 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict rendered against the defendant and the judgment of conviction would have to be affirmed were it not for an erroneous instruction given to the jury, when they asked for instructions, in substance, that the jury must find the defendant guilty or innocent on each of the four counts of the indictment. The law is otherwise. A jury may disagree as to any or every count of an indictment or it may acquit or convict as to one or more of the counts of an indictment and disagree as to the remaining counts. A judge “ must not attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict.” (People v. Faber, 199 N. Y. 256, 259. See, also, Levinson v. Zipkin, 65 Misc. 203, 206; Wilkins v. Abbey, 168 id. 416, 418; Code Crim. Proc. § 428.) We do not regard this error as unsubstantial. [See Code Grim. Proe. § 542.] The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial should be granted. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the other errors urged by the appellant and we express no opinion as to them. All concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of forgery, second degree, and petit larceny.) Present — Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict rendered against the defendant and the judgment of conviction would have to be affirmed were it not for an erroneous instruction given to the jury, when they asked for instructions, in substance, that the jury must find the defendant guilty or innocent on each of the four counts of the indictment. The law is otherwise. A jury may disagree as to any or every count of an indictment or it may acquit or convict as to one or more of the counts of an indictment and disagree as to the remaining counts. A judge “ must not attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict.” (People v. Faber, 199 N. Y. 256, 259. See, also, Levinson v. Zipkin, 65 Misc. 203, 206; Wilkins v. Abbey, 168 id. 416, 418; Code Crim. Proc. § 428.) We do not regard this error as unsubstantial. [See Code Grim. Proe. § 542.] The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial should be granted. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the other errors urged by the appellant and we express no opinion as to them. All concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of forgery, second degree, and petit larceny.) Present — Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 876, 25 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moore-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack