People v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Price

19 A.D.2d 730, 242 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 730 (People v. Price) 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. Price, 19 A.D.2d 730, 242 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered April 13, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of criminally receiving stolen property (Penal Law, § 1308) and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact in the court below have not been considered. In our opinion, it was reversible error to charge the jury that it could find the defendant guilty if he had “ reason to believe ” or “ should have known ” that the property had been stolen, since the correct test is actual knowledge, not negligence in failing to make reasonable inquiry (People v. Checkman, 284 App. Div. 44). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ. concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered April 13, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of criminally receiving stolen property (Penal Law, § 1308) and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact in the court below have not been considered. In our opinion, it was reversible error to charge the jury that it could find the defendant guilty if he had “ reason to believe ” or “ should have known ” that the property had been stolen, since the correct test is actual knowledge, not negligence in failing to make reasonable inquiry (People v. Checkman, 284 App. Div. 44). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 730, 242 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-price-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack