People v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wagner

82 N.Y.S. 1109

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

DecidedJune 19, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.Y.S. 1109 (People v. Wagner) 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. Wagner, 82 N.Y.S. 1109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of arson in the first degree, for which he was sentenced to state’s prison for the term of 19 years. He has had two trials, and each has resulted in a judgment of conviction. Upon the appeal from the first judgment a majority of this court was of the opinion that a new trial should be ordered, because it did not satisfactorily appear that the fire was of incendiary origin. People v. Wagner, 71 App. Div. 399, 75 Ñ. Y. Supp. 950. Upon the second trial, however, this fact was made to appear, or evidence given which justified the finding of the jury in this respect. In view of the importance of the appeal to the defendant, we have carefully examined the record, and are satisfied that at the conclusion of the trial there was a clear question of fact for the jury, both as to the origin of the fire and defendant’s connection with it. The defendant had a fair trial. No errors were committed to his prejudice, either in the admission of evidence or in the instructions given to the jury. He was found guilty by the jury, and we see no reason for interfering with their verdict. The judgment and order appealed from, therefore, must be-affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of arson in the first degree, for which he was sentenced to state’s prison for the term of 19 years. He has had two trials, and each has resulted in a judgment of conviction. Upon the appeal from the first judgment a majority of this court was of the opinion that a new trial should be ordered, because it did not satisfactorily appear that the fire was of incendiary origin. People v. Wagner, 71 App. Div. 399, 75 Ñ. Y. Supp. 950. Upon the second trial, however, this fact was made to appear, or evidence given which justified the finding of the jury in this respect. In view of the importance of the appeal to the defendant, we have carefully examined the record, and are satisfied that at the conclusion of the trial there was a clear question of fact for the jury, both as to the origin of the fire and defendant’s connection with it. The defendant had a fair trial. No errors were committed to his prejudice, either in the admission of evidence or in the instructions given to the jury. He was found guilty by the jury, and we see no reason for interfering with their verdict. The judgment and order appealed from, therefore, must be-affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y.S. 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wagner-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack