People v. Sowinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sowinski

250 A.D. 828, 296 N.Y.S. 459, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9175

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 828 (People v. Sowinski) 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. Sowinski, 250 A.D. 828, 296 N.Y.S. 459, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: In affirming this judgment we do not put our stamp of approval upon the summation of the district attorney. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Lewis, J., who dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial on the law and facts on the ground that the determination that there was in the record competent testimony other than given by accomplices tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime was contrary to the evidence and not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and on the further ground that the summation of the district attorney was prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. (The judgment convicts the appellant of the crime of arson in the second degree.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: In affirming this judgment we do not put our stamp of approval upon the summation of the district attorney. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Lewis, J., who dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial on the law and facts on the ground that the determination that there was in the record competent testimony other than given by accomplices tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime was contrary to the evidence and not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and on the further ground that the summation of the district attorney was prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. (The judgment convicts the appellant of the crime of arson in the second degree.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 828, 296 N.Y.S. 459, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sowinski-nyappdiv-1937.