People v. Stevens

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Stevens

1 Silv. Ct. App. 329, 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 720

DecidedFebruary 1, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Silv. Ct. App. 329 (People v. Stevens) 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. Stevens, 1 Silv. Ct. App. 329, 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 720 (N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order of reversal states merely that it was made on questions of law. It does not state that the court has considered the questions of fact or exercised the discretion which the statute confers upon it. We have decided that this court will not review an order of reversal in such a case, unless it shows that the court has exercised its 'discretionary powers. See People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560-564; Same v. Conroy, 97 N. Y. 62-72; Harris v. Burdett, 73 N. Y. 136. Although the court in the present case puts its decision upon a question of law, we cannot say it would not have reached the same result had it exercised its discretion, and entertained a different opinion on the question of law. The prisoner was entitled to a review of the facts, and the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, which he might lose if the cáse should be disposed of solely on a question of law.

The case should, therefore, be remitted to the general term to consider the questions of fact, and exercise its discretion.

All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The order of reversal states merely that it was made on questions of law. It does not state that the court has considered the questions of fact or exercised the discretion which the statute confers upon it. We have decided that this court will not review an order of reversal in such a case, unless it shows that the court has exercised its 'discretionary powers. See People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560-564; Same v. Conroy, 97 N. Y. 62-72; Harris v. Burdett, 73 N. Y. 136. Although the court in the present case puts its decision upon a question of law, we cannot say it would not have reached the same result had it exercised its discretion, and entertained a different opinion on the question of law. The prisoner was entitled to a review of the facts, and the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, which he might lose if the cáse should be disposed of solely on a question of law.

The case should, therefore, be remitted to the general term to consider the questions of fact, and exercise its discretion.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Silv. Ct. App. 329, 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stevens-ny-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack