People v. Rando

New York Supreme Court

People v. Rando

3 Park. Cr. 335

DecidedFebruary 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Park. Cr. 335 (People v. Rando) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rando, 3 Park. Cr. 335 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinions

By the Court, Roosevelt, J.

Where a party is indicted for the crime of knowingly receiving stolen goods, it is competent to' the prosecution to give in evidence a series of other acts of the like character, to show the knowledge or scienter of the accused, or to rebut any presumption of innocent mistake.

It is not competent to the prisoner to introduce the allegations of the persons from whom he received the stolen goods. Such permission would lead to the fraudulent manufacture of evidence without the penalty of perjury.

The exceptions taken at the trial must therefore be over- ■ ruled, and the proceedings of the General Sessions Affirmed:

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

By the Court, Roosevelt, J.

Where a party is indicted for the crime of knowingly receiving stolen goods, it is competent to' the prosecution to give in evidence a series of other acts of the like character, to show the knowledge or scienter of the accused, or to rebut any presumption of innocent mistake.

It is not competent to the prisoner to introduce the allegations of the persons from whom he received the stolen goods. Such permission would lead to the fraudulent manufacture of evidence without the penalty of perjury.

The exceptions taken at the trial must therefore be over- ■ ruled, and the proceedings of the General Sessions Affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Park. Cr. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rando-nysupct-1857.