People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams

258 A.D. 904, 16 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 904 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 258 A.D. 904, 16 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Kings county, convicting the defendant of rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree, reversed oh the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The testimony as to particulars of the disclosure made by the complainant, which appears after the objections at folios 141 and 279 of the record, should not have been admitted. The People having introduced evidence of part of the statements made by the defendant at the time of his arrest, the application made by defendant’s counsel at folio 470 should have been granted without the restrictions that were imposed. The request to charge, with respect to Mrs. Block’s testimony, at folios 666 and 667, should have been granted. It was not a sufficient answer to the note of the jury to have read subdivision 3 of section 2010 of the Penal Law. The charge as a whole was not sufficient or adequate, but on a second trial the error in this respect probably will not be repeated. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs as to reversal of the judgment of conviction but dissents as to a new trial and votes to dismiss the indictment.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Kings county, convicting the defendant of rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree, reversed oh the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The testimony as to particulars of the disclosure made by the complainant, which appears after the objections at folios 141 and 279 of the record, should not have been admitted. The People having introduced evidence of part of the statements made by the defendant at the time of his arrest, the application made by defendant’s counsel at folio 470 should have been granted without the restrictions that were imposed. The request to charge, with respect to Mrs. Block’s testimony, at folios 666 and 667, should have been granted. It was not a sufficient answer to the note of the jury to have read subdivision 3 of section 2010 of the Penal Law. The charge as a whole was not sufficient or adequate, but on a second trial the error in this respect probably will not be repeated. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs as to reversal of the judgment of conviction but dissents as to a new trial and votes to dismiss the indictment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 904, 16 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-nyappdiv-1939.