People v. Rosenberg

56 N.E.2d 304, 293 N.Y. 697, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2123
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rosenberg. Read the opinion of the Court — 293 N.Y. 16
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 14, 1944·Published

Opinion

Motion by respondent for reargument denied. Nothing in our per curiam opinion was intended to mean that a finding of innocence by the jury, at the new trial, as to one or more of the acts charged in the 5th and 8th counts of the indictment, will *698 necessarily result in a similar finding of innocence as to other allegedly criminal acts charged in those counts. All we inténded to say was that, on the prosecution’s theory and on the testimony of the prosecutrix, one person only dealt with the prosecutrix in those transactions. (See 293 N. Y. 16.)

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

People v. Rosenberg, 56 N.E.2d 304, 293 N.Y. 697, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2123 (N.Y. 1944).

56 N.E.2d 304 (People v. Rosenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Rosenberg
55 N.E.2d 848 (New York Court of Appeals, 1944)