People v. Morris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morris

263 A.D. 618, 34 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6962

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

DecidedApril 10, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 618 (People v. Morris) 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. Morris, 263 A.D. 618, 34 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The charge of the court, urging the jurors to agree upon a verdict, included the statement “ It isn't important what verdict it is. It is that you arrive at a verdict if you possibly can.” That statement constituted error which requires the reversal of the judgment. Although the attention of the court was subsequently directed to the error by a motion for a mistrial, it was not corrected and may have influenced certain of the jurors [619]*619to agree upon a verdict in which they would otherwise not have concurred.

The case was a doubtful one, as the jury appears to have realized. At the time of the erroneous statement the jury had been unable to agree after deliberation of more than thirteen hours. It rendered its verdict within two hours thereafter. We cannot say that this statement to the jury, which the court declined to retract or correct, may not have influenced certain of the jurors to surrender their belief, sincerely entertained, that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

The charge of the court, urging the jurors to agree upon a verdict, included the statement “ It isn't important what verdict it is. It is that you arrive at a verdict if you possibly can.” That statement constituted error which requires the reversal of the judgment. Although the attention of the court was subsequently directed to the error by a motion for a mistrial, it was not corrected and may have influenced certain of the jurors [619]*619to agree upon a verdict in which they would otherwise not have concurred.

The case was a doubtful one, as the jury appears to have realized. At the time of the erroneous statement the jury had been unable to agree after deliberation of more than thirteen hours. It rendered its verdict within two hours thereafter. We cannot say that this statement to the jury, which the court declined to retract or correct, may not have influenced certain of the jurors to surrender their belief, sincerely entertained, that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 618, 34 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morris-nyappdiv-1942.