People v. Swersky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swersky

168 A.D. 941

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

DecidedMay 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D. 941 (People v. Swersky) 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. Swersky, 168 A.D. 941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Dowling, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that it was error to charge that there were three accomplices only—Friedman, O’Brien and Mrs. Erlichman; that it was also error for the court to hold that Joseph Erlichman was not in law an accomplice; and that it was further error to refuse the request to charge that it was for the jury to determine whether Joseph Erlichman was or was not an accomplice. In my opinion, the question of his being an accomplice was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.

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

Dowling, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that it was error to charge that there were three accomplices only—Friedman, O’Brien and Mrs. Erlichman; that it was also error for the court to hold that Joseph Erlichman was not in law an accomplice; and that it was further error to refuse the request to charge that it was for the jury to determine whether Joseph Erlichman was or was not an accomplice. In my opinion, the question of his being an accomplice was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D. 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swersky-nyappdiv-1915.