People v. Pavlisak, Jones

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Pavlisak, Jones

53 N.E.2d 845, 292 N.Y. 504, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1667

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 20, 1944·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

The judgments should be affirmed on the ground that there was no prejudicial error in the charge as to reasonable doubt when read in its entirety or in any other rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were taken. We may not consider rulings to which no exceptions were taken. (People v. Cummins, 209 N. Y. 283; People v. Pindar, 210 N. Y. 191.)

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Desmond and Thacher, JJ., concur; Conway, J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Rippey, J., concurs:

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

The judgments should be affirmed on the ground that there was no prejudicial error in the charge as to reasonable doubt when read in its entirety or in any other rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were taken. We may not consider rulings to which no exceptions were taken. (People v. Cummins, 209 N. Y. 283; People v. Pindar, 210 N. Y. 191.)

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Desmond and Thacher, JJ., concur; Conway, J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Rippey, J., concurs:

People v. Pavlisak, Jones, 53 N.E.2d 845, 292 N.Y. 504, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1667 (N.Y. 1944).

Pincite

53 N.E.2d 845 (People v. Pavlisak, Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related