People v. Pierce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pierce

1 A.D.2d 680, 146 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 680 (People v. Pierce) 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. Pierce, 1 A.D.2d 680, 146 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, convicting appellant, a physician, of abortion, and from the sentence and intermediate orders. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and new trial ordered. The cross-examination of appellant as to his failure to answer questions put to him after he had been taken into custody was improper, and the introduction into evidence of People’s Exhibit 8 over appellant’s objection was without justification as it had no probative value and had an obviously prejudicial effect. In any event, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice. No separate appeal lies from the sentence and the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment. Wenzel, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Ughetta, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, convicting appellant, a physician, of abortion, and from the sentence and intermediate orders. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and new trial ordered. The cross-examination of appellant as to his failure to answer questions put to him after he had been taken into custody was improper, and the introduction into evidence of People’s Exhibit 8 over appellant’s objection was without justification as it had no probative value and had an obviously prejudicial effect. In any event, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice. No separate appeal lies from the sentence and the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment. Wenzel, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Ughetta, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 680, 146 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pierce-nyappdiv-1955.