People v. Rhodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhodes

283 A.D. 804, 128 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 804 (People v. Rhodes) 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. Rhodes, 283 A.D. 804, 128 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court of Dutchess County, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, and from an order of said court denying his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for an order providing for the taking of testimony. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial ordered. Appeal from the order dismissed, as academic. Two certain written transcriptions of statements made by appellant, which were admitted into evidence, were characterized by the trial court in its charge to the jury as confessions, despite the fact that the texts are not inconsistent with appellant’s innocence of the crime charged. This Was prejudicial error and requires a new trial. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court of Dutchess County, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, and from an order of said court denying his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for an order providing for the taking of testimony. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial ordered. Appeal from the order dismissed, as academic. Two certain written transcriptions of statements made by appellant, which were admitted into evidence, were characterized by the trial court in its charge to the jury as confessions, despite the fact that the texts are not inconsistent with appellant’s innocence of the crime charged. This Was prejudicial error and requires a new trial. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 804, 128 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhodes-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack