People v. Rasmusson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rasmusson

286 A.D. 860, 141 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369

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

DecidedJune 13, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D. 860 (People v. Rasmusson) 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. Rasmusson, 286 A.D. 860, 141 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from an order of the Children’s Court, Nassau County (designated in the notice of appeal as “the final judgment”), adjudging him to be the father of a child expected to he born out of wedlock and directing him to pay $2.50 a week toward the expense of confinement. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and new trial ordered. No foundation was laid for the receipt in evidence of the certificate of the doctor as to the duration of the pregnancy. It was pure hearsay which cannot be said, on this record, not to have influenced the Trial Judge to find defendant responsible for the pregnancy, notwithstanding the testimony of his witnesses that they had had intercourse with the complainant and that they so testified after they had been threatened by the Trial Judge with arrest if they would give such testimony. In the absence of denial by the complainant of the specific acts of [861]*861intercourse testified to by the witnesses, the finding of defendant’s responsibility for the pregnancy was not warranted, and was against the weight of the evidence. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from an order of the Children’s Court, Nassau County (designated in the notice of appeal as “the final judgment”), adjudging him to be the father of a child expected to he born out of wedlock and directing him to pay $2.50 a week toward the expense of confinement. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and new trial ordered. No foundation was laid for the receipt in evidence of the certificate of the doctor as to the duration of the pregnancy. It was pure hearsay which cannot be said, on this record, not to have influenced the Trial Judge to find defendant responsible for the pregnancy, notwithstanding the testimony of his witnesses that they had had intercourse with the complainant and that they so testified after they had been threatened by the Trial Judge with arrest if they would give such testimony. In the absence of denial by the complainant of the specific acts of [861]*861intercourse testified to by the witnesses, the finding of defendant’s responsibility for the pregnancy was not warranted, and was against the weight of the evidence. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 860, 141 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rasmusson-nyappdiv-1955.