People v. Stover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stover

1 A.D.2d 659, 147 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 659 (People v. Stover) 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. Stover, 1 A.D.2d 659, 147 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

The court is concerned in that certain areas of possible testimony were not explored. In the interests of justice, the judgment is unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered. Consequently, on the retrial, testimony as to what occurred in the manager’s office when defendant was first seen by the witness Keany and the testimony of the salesman in the luggage department would be helpful in reaching a proper determination. Also, the testimony concerning the three shopping bags which was first admitted and later stricken should have been permitted to remain in the record—not as evidence of the commission of a crime but of defendant’s course of conduct and activities while in the store. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

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

The court is concerned in that certain areas of possible testimony were not explored. In the interests of justice, the judgment is unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered. Consequently, on the retrial, testimony as to what occurred in the manager’s office when defendant was first seen by the witness Keany and the testimony of the salesman in the luggage department would be helpful in reaching a proper determination. Also, the testimony concerning the three shopping bags which was first admitted and later stricken should have been permitted to remain in the record—not as evidence of the commission of a crime but of defendant’s course of conduct and activities while in the store. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 659, 147 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stover-nyappdiv-1955.