People v. Scata, Bolognia, Didonne, Zizzo, Kimmel
5 N.E.2d 352, 272 N.Y. 602, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1093
Opinion
As to each defendant, judgment of conviction affirmed. The error in the judge’s charge as to the effect of a promise by the Assistant District Attorney did not in our opinion affect the substantial right of the defendants. No opinion.
Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Finch, JJ. Dissenting as to defendants Kimmel, Bruno and Zizzo; Lehman and Loughran, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Scata, Bolognia, Didonne, Zizzo, Kimmel, 5 N.E.2d 352, 272 N.Y. 602, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1093 (N.Y. 1936).
5 N.E.2d 352 (People v. Scata, Bolognia, Didonne, Zizzo, Kimmel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Zizzo
38 Misc. 2d 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
People ex rel. Zizzo v. Fay
16 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
People v. Kimmel
13 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
People v. Zizzo
9 Misc. 2d 484 (New York County Courts, 1958)