People v. Workman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Workman

283 A.D. 1066, 131 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335

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

DecidedJune 1, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 1066 (People v. Workman) 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. Workman, 283 A.D. 1066, 131 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting him of the crime of perjury in the first degree, and from the sentence imposed thereon and the order denying his motion to set aside the verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed. The display before the jury of the chart, People’s Exhibit 10 for Identification, did not constitute reversible error. The various items listed thereon, allegedly omitted by defendant from his answers to a questionnaire submitted to a Grand Jury, were not disclosed to the trial jury until established by independent evidence. After such testimony had been adduced, the chart could have been received in evidence as an aid to the jurors (cf. People v. Bel Yermo, 192 N. Y. 470, 482; People V. Feld, 305 N. Y. 322, 331-332, and Fox v. United States, 45 F. 2d 364; see, also, record on appeal, People V. Connolly, 227 App. Div. 167, affd. 253 N. Y. 330); and the jury were clearly instructed that the chart was not evidence [1067]*1067and was merely offered to assist them. If it be assumed that the display of the chart by the People was improper, the error was waived by defendant’s repeated use of the exhibit on his own case. (Of. Say den v. Palmer, 2 Hill 205, 209-210, and 1 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 18, pp. 344-345.) In any event, the evidence was ample to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any error may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s other contentions have been considered and in our opinion do not present reversible error. (Cf. People v. Workman, 282 App. Div. 703.) Ho separate appeal lies from the sentence or from the order denying the motion to set aside the verdict, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Holán, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting him of the crime of perjury in the first degree, and from the sentence imposed thereon and the order denying his motion to set aside the verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed. The display before the jury of the chart, People’s Exhibit 10 for Identification, did not constitute reversible error. The various items listed thereon, allegedly omitted by defendant from his answers to a questionnaire submitted to a Grand Jury, were not disclosed to the trial jury until established by independent evidence. After such testimony had been adduced, the chart could have been received in evidence as an aid to the jurors (cf. People v. Bel Yermo, 192 N. Y. 470, 482; People V. Feld, 305 N. Y. 322, 331-332, and Fox v. United States, 45 F. 2d 364; see, also, record on appeal, People V. Connolly, 227 App. Div. 167, affd. 253 N. Y. 330); and the jury were clearly instructed that the chart was not evidence [1067]*1067and was merely offered to assist them. If it be assumed that the display of the chart by the People was improper, the error was waived by defendant’s repeated use of the exhibit on his own case. (Of. Say den v. Palmer, 2 Hill 205, 209-210, and 1 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 18, pp. 344-345.) In any event, the evidence was ample to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any error may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s other contentions have been considered and in our opinion do not present reversible error. (Cf. People v. Workman, 282 App. Div. 703.) Ho separate appeal lies from the sentence or from the order denying the motion to set aside the verdict, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Holán, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1066, 131 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-workman-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack