People v. Ralph C.

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ralph C.

350 N.E.2d 614, 39 N.Y.2d 777, 385 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2727

DecidedApril 29, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 350 N.E.2d 614 (People v. Ralph C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ralph C., 350 N.E.2d 614, 39 N.Y.2d 777, 385 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2727 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum. The order of Appellate Term affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York should be affirmed.

We fail to perceive the relevance, for any purpose, of the information contained in the proffered weather report which the defendant contends the trial court refused to admit into evidence. There was no question of fact as to whether it was raining, as indeed the complainant herself testified that it was raining at the moment that the defendant accosted her. Since her observation of defendant was from very close range—close enough for her to strike him with her umbrella—the amount of rain which fell at the city’s official weather station during the pertinent one-hour period could not, without more, have any significant bearing on her ability to observe the defendant. Moreover, we are not empowered to consider defendant’s assertion that he was at his place of employment six blocks away when the crime was committed, as this involves nothing more than a question of fact. (People v Eisenberg, 22 NY2d 99, 101; People v Leonti, 18 NY2d 384.)

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

Memorandum. The order of Appellate Term affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York should be affirmed.

We fail to perceive the relevance, for any purpose, of the information contained in the proffered weather report which the defendant contends the trial court refused to admit into evidence. There was no question of fact as to whether it was raining, as indeed the complainant herself testified that it was raining at the moment that the defendant accosted her. Since her observation of defendant was from very close range—close enough for her to strike him with her umbrella—the amount of rain which fell at the city’s official weather station during the pertinent one-hour period could not, without more, have any significant bearing on her ability to observe the defendant. Moreover, we are not empowered to consider defendant’s assertion that he was at his place of employment six blocks away when the crime was committed, as this involves nothing more than a question of fact. (People v Eisenberg, 22 NY2d 99, 101; People v Leonti, 18 NY2d 384.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 N.E.2d 614, 39 N.Y.2d 777, 385 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ralph-c-ny-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack