People v. Chacon
Decision Date | 13 April 1886 |
Citation | 6 N.E. 303,102 N.Y. 669 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. CHACON. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles S. Spencer, for appellant.
De Lancey Nicoll, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted of shooting with a pistol, and thus murdering, Maria Williams, in the city of New York, on the twentieth day of June, 1884. The killing is undisputed, and there was abundant evidence of premeditation and deliberation to justify the conviction. We have only to deal with exceptions taken at the trial, and but one of those, about which there was a difference of opinion among the judges composing the general term, is of sufficient importance to require special notice.
Munroe Williams, the husband of the victim, was the principal witness for the prosecution. He was the only person besides the defendant who saw the killing, and who testified to what took place at the time. He testified that he and his wife stood near each other, and that the defendant fired three shots, two at him, and one, the fatal shot, at her. Upon cross-examination by defendant's counsel Williams was asked questions, and gave answers, as follows:
These two exceptions are now claimed by the counsel for the defendant to have been well taken, and to point out a serious error, for which this judgment should be reversed. We think otherwise.As to the first exception, the witness was asked to answer the question, ‘Yes or no,’ and when the defendant's counsel observed that he was not answering the question in that way, and was proceeding to give the same answer which had once been stricken out, he should have stopped the witness, and arrested the answer. He could not lie by, and speculate on the chances of first hearing what the witness would testify to, and then, when he found the testimony unsatisfactory, move to strike it out. Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349. Whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hintz v. Wagner
... ... testimony, or a question for the jury. Kline v. Kansas ... City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 50 Iowa 659; People v ... Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 24 N.W. 843; Yost v ... Conroy, 92 Ind. 471, 47 Am. Rep. 156; Smith v. Northen ... P. R. Co. 3 N.D. 561, 58 N.W ... v. Kendall, 178 Mass ... 232, 51 L.R.A. 781, 86 Am. St. Rep. 478, 59 N.E. 657, 9 Am ... Neg. Rep. 496; People v. Chacon, 102 N.Y. 669, 6 ... N.E. 303; Butts County v. Hixon, 135 Ga. 26, 68 S.E ... 786; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Huey, Tex. Civ ... App. , ... ...
-
Hickman v. Green
... ... 95; State v. Hope , 100 Mo ... 347, 13 S.W. 490; 1 Rice on Evidence, secs. 258 and 259; ... Quin v. Lloyd , 41 N.Y. 349; People v ... Chacon , 102 N.Y. 669, 6 N.E. 303; Berry v ... Hartzell , 91 Mo. 132, 3 S.W. 582 ... II. The ... important question ... ...
-
The State v. Marcks
... ... Witten, ... 100 Mo. 525; State v. Cunningham, 100 Mo. 382; ... State v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 410; Barney v. The ... People, 22 Ill. 160. (4) To establish the crime of rape ... it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ... actual resistance. A passive ... later in the trial. Maxwell v. Railroad , 85 Mo. 95; ... State v. Hope , 100 Mo. 347, 13 S.W. 490; People ... v. Chacon , 102 N.Y. 669, 6 N.E. 303; Miller v ... Montgomery , 78 N.Y. 282; Quin v. Lloyd , 41 N.Y ... 349; Barkly v. Copeland , 86 Cal. 483; 1 Rice, ... ...
-
Hickman v. Green
...Railroad Co., 85 Mo. 95; State v. Hope, 100 Mo. 347, 13 S. W. 490; 1 Rice, Ev. §§ 258, 259; Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349; People v. Chacon, 102 N. Y. 669, 16 N. E. 303; Berry v. Hartzell, 91 Mo. 132, 3 S. W. 2. The important question in this case is that of notice to Mrs. Green of the execut......