People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murray

183 A.D. 468, 36 N.Y. Crim. 531, 170 N.Y.S. 873, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7922

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

DecidedJune 7, 1918

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 183 A.D. 468 (People v. Murray) 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. Murray, 183 A.D. 468, 36 N.Y. Crim. 531, 170 N.Y.S. 873, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The evidence would be sufficient to sustain the judgment except for the requirement of section 2013 of the Penal Law. That statute provides that “No conviction can be had for .rape or defilement upon the testimony of the female defiled, unsupported by other evidence,” and the courts have decided that the corroboration must extend to every material fact essential to constitute the crime. (People v. Page, 162 N. Y. 272, 274.) In this respect the statute is different from that governing the case of an accomplice, where the statute is satisfied if the accomplice is “ corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.” (Code Crim. Proc. § 399.) The difference in the two statutes is analyzed in People v. Becker (215 N. Y. 126, 139).

In the case at bar a careful analysis of the evidence of witnesses other than the prosecutrix discloses no support to her testimony as to the fact of sexual intercourse on the night in question. The learned judge charged the jury that the prompt disclosure by the female was corroborating evidence. In this respect the charge.cannot be sustained. Although such evidence is admissible in cases of rape as part of the People’s case, this is not in accordance with the general rules of evidence, and the evidence is permitted rather to rebut an inference which might be drawn from her silence, than as confirmation of the crime. But such evidence depends wholly on the veracity of the complainant, and “ it is not ‘ other evidence ’ in support of her version of the affair within the meaning of the statute.” (People v. Page, 162 N. Y. 276; People v. Shaw, 158 App. Div. 146.)

Both the point of the want of supporting evidence, and of the error in the charge, are presented by sufficient exceptions, and the judgment of conviction of the County Court of Orange county and order must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Jenks, P. L, Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Orange county and order reversed, and new trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam:

The evidence would be sufficient to sustain the judgment except for the requirement of section 2013 of the Penal Law. That statute provides that “No conviction can be had for .rape or defilement upon the testimony of the female defiled, unsupported by other evidence,” and the courts have decided that the corroboration must extend to every material fact essential to constitute the crime. (People v. Page, 162 N. Y. 272, 274.) In this respect the statute is different from that governing the case of an accomplice, where the statute is satisfied if the accomplice is “ corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.” (Code Crim. Proc. § 399.) The difference in the two statutes is analyzed in People v. Becker (215 N. Y. 126, 139).

In the case at bar a careful analysis of the evidence of witnesses other than the prosecutrix discloses no support to her testimony as to the fact of sexual intercourse on the night in question. The learned judge charged the jury that the prompt disclosure by the female was corroborating evidence. In this respect the charge.cannot be sustained. Although such evidence is admissible in cases of rape as part of the People’s case, this is not in accordance with the general rules of evidence, and the evidence is permitted rather to rebut an inference which might be drawn from her silence, than as confirmation of the crime. But such evidence depends wholly on the veracity of the complainant, and “ it is not ‘ other evidence ’ in support of her version of the affair within the meaning of the statute.” (People v. Page, 162 N. Y. 276; People v. Shaw, 158 App. Div. 146.)

Both the point of the want of supporting evidence, and of the error in the charge, are presented by sufficient exceptions, and the judgment of conviction of the County Court of Orange county and order must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Jenks, P. L, Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Orange county and order reversed, and new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D. 468, 36 N.Y. Crim. 531, 170 N.Y.S. 873, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-nyappdiv-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack