People v. Spitzer

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Spitzer

60 N.E.2d 18, 294 N.Y. 5

DecidedDecember 30, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 60 N.E.2d 18 (People v. Spitzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Spitzer, 60 N.E.2d 18, 294 N.Y. 5 (N.Y. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted for and convicted of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, committed as a second offense, and petit larceny. The court clearly and forcibly indicated in his main charge and also in a charge made in response to a request that he believed the defendant guilty of the crimes for which he was indicted and that he should be convicted. This left for the jury no fair opportunity for consideration of the question of criminal intent which was an essential element of the crimes charged and the main point in issue in the case.

For the errors thus committed, and preserved for consideration by exceptions, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughean, Rippey, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ., concur; Lewis, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted for and convicted of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, committed as a second offense, and petit larceny. The court clearly and forcibly indicated in his main charge and also in a charge made in response to a request that he believed the defendant guilty of the crimes for which he was indicted and that he should be convicted. This left for the jury no fair opportunity for consideration of the question of criminal intent which was an essential element of the crimes charged and the main point in issue in the case.

For the errors thus committed, and preserved for consideration by exceptions, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughean, Rippey, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ., concur; Lewis, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.E.2d 18, 294 N.Y. 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spitzer-ny-1944.