People v. Mosher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mosher

12 A.D.2d 878, 210 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 878 (People v. Mosher) 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. Mosher, 12 A.D.2d 878, 210 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Upon the trial an issue of fact was presented as to whether the alleged larceny occurred in the County of Erie or in the County of Wyoming. The trial court properly refused to pass upon this as a question of law but neglected to present the factual issue to the jury. While there was no specific request to charge upon the subject, we believe that the trial court was sufficiently alerted by appellant’s motion so that the question of venue should have been submitted. (Cf. People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, 315, affd. 301 N. Y. 757; see, also, People v. Hetenyi, 304 N. Y. 80, 83, 84.) The trial court properly submitted the question as to whether the witness, Lueke, was an accomplice. The instructions, however, were confusing and the jury was not charged, as they should have been, as to the provision of section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Upon the trial an issue of fact was presented as to whether the alleged larceny occurred in the County of Erie or in the County of Wyoming. The trial court properly refused to pass upon this as a question of law but neglected to present the factual issue to the jury. While there was no specific request to charge upon the subject, we believe that the trial court was sufficiently alerted by appellant’s motion so that the question of venue should have been submitted. (Cf. People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, 315, affd. 301 N. Y. 757; see, also, People v. Hetenyi, 304 N. Y. 80, 83, 84.) The trial court properly submitted the question as to whether the witness, Lueke, was an accomplice. The instructions, however, were confusing and the jury was not charged, as they should have been, as to the provision of section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 878, 210 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mosher-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack