128 N.Y. 108, People v. Most

Citation128 N.Y. 108
Party NameTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN MOST, Appellant.
Case DateJune 16, 1891
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Page 108

128 N.Y. 108

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.

JOHN MOST, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

June 16, 1891

Argued June 8, 1891.

Page 109

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 110

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 111

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 112

COUNSEL

William F. Howe for appellant. The alleged threats being against persons not residents, our Penal Code has no extra territorial effect, and, therefore, such threats could not constitute a violation of our statute. ( People v. Mosher, 2 Park. 195; W. T. & C. Co. v. Kilderhouse, 87 N.Y. 430; Ormes v. Dauchy, 82 id. 443; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. 590.) The court erred in permitting the district attorney to interrogate each witness for the defense as to his religious belief, and in not stopping the district attorney in his summing up to the jury when he said that the jury should not believe the defendant and his witnesses, because some of them testified that they did not believe in the Supreme Being. (Const. of N.Y. art. 1, § 3.)

McKenzie Semple, Assistant District Attorney, for respondent.

ANDREWS, J.

But three of the questions presented on the brief of the appellant's counsel can be considered on this appeal. One of these questions is raised by the exception to the denial by the trial judge of the motion of the counsel for the defendant, made at the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the people, for an instruction to the jury to acquit the defendant on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to justify a conviction. An exception was taken to a question put to a witness for the defendant on cross-examination by the prosecuting officer, and which was allowed by the court, as to his belief in a Supreme Being. A third exception was taken to evidence offered by the prosecution and admitted, that the persons present at the meeting at Kramer's Hall on the evening of November 12, 1887, were anarchists.

By the decision of the General Term, affirming the conviction and judgment of the trial court, questions as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight and preponderance of evidence are eliminated from the controversy, as well as every consideration bearing upon the propriety of granting a new

Page 113

trial in the exercise of judicial discretion, upon the ground that the jury were prejudiced by offers of evidence persistently made by the prosecuting officer, and repeatedly overruled, which offers, as is claimed, were persisted in in order to bring before the jury irrelevant facts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • 74 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. 1934), 32107, McClellan v. Owens
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Septiembre 1934
    ...abrogating all disqualification from civil rights on account of such beliefs." The same court had previously said in People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 26 Am. St. Rep. 458, that "The exception to the question put to the witness on cross-examination as to his belief in a Supreme Being i......
  • 63 N.Y.2d 341, People v. Eulo
    • United States
    • New York United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • 30 Octubre 1984
    ...definition will be assigned to the term, absent contrary indications (People v. Richards, 108 N.Y. 137, 15 N.E. 371; see People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 113, 27 N.E. 970; cf. Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler, 233 N.Y. 24, 134 N.E. 823). In every case, of course, the term must be read in accordan......
  • 150 Misc.2d 872, People v. Biltsted
    • United States
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...has generated very little reported caselaw. Whatever cases do exist are far too dated to provide significant guidance (People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 27 N.E. 970 (1891); Slater v. Wood, 9 Bosw. 15 (1861); Michaels v. Hillman, 111 Misc. 284, 181 N.Y.S. 165 (1920); People v. Westfall, 6 A.D.2d......
  • 12 Misc.3d 671, 2006-26,154, People v. M. R.
    • United States
    • 20 Abril 2006
    ...alarm. 1 The purpose of this statute, like that of its predecessors, is " the protection of the public peace." (People v Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 115 [1891].) Since the statute implicates the right of peaceful assembly, which is a fundamental constitutional right, it must be interprete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • 74 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. 1934), 32107, McClellan v. Owens
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Septiembre 1934
    ...abrogating all disqualification from civil rights on account of such beliefs." The same court had previously said in People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 26 Am. St. Rep. 458, that "The exception to the question put to the witness on cross-examination as to his belief in a Supreme Being i......
  • 63 N.Y.2d 341, People v. Eulo
    • United States
    • New York United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • 30 Octubre 1984
    ...definition will be assigned to the term, absent contrary indications (People v. Richards, 108 N.Y. 137, 15 N.E. 371; see People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 113, 27 N.E. 970; cf. Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler, 233 N.Y. 24, 134 N.E. 823). In every case, of course, the term must be read in accordan......
  • 150 Misc.2d 872, People v. Biltsted
    • United States
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...has generated very little reported caselaw. Whatever cases do exist are far too dated to provide significant guidance (People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 27 N.E. 970 (1891); Slater v. Wood, 9 Bosw. 15 (1861); Michaels v. Hillman, 111 Misc. 284, 181 N.Y.S. 165 (1920); People v. Westfall, 6 A.D.2d......
  • 12 Misc.3d 671, 2006-26,154, People v. M. R.
    • United States
    • 20 Abril 2006
    ...alarm. 1 The purpose of this statute, like that of its predecessors, is " the protection of the public peace." (People v Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 115 [1891].) Since the statute implicates the right of peaceful assembly, which is a fundamental constitutional right, it must be interprete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results