People v. Arata

Decision Date10 February 1931
PartiesPEOPLE v. ARATA.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Peter Arata was convicted of first degree murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 254 N. Y. 565, 173 N. E. 868.

Appeal from Court of General Sessions, New York County.

Alexander I. Rorke, Leo H. Klugherz, Joseph D. Edelson and Samuel Feldman, all of New York City, for appellant.

Thomas C. T. Crain, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert C. Taylor, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.

The convication in this case rests upon the testimony of two accomplices, corroborated to some extent by other witnesses and by inconsistencies in the defendant's narrative, which was designed to prove an alibi. The corroborating witnesses for the most part are persons of degraded life. Judges confined to the printed record must have a lingering sense of uncertainty when reviewing a conviction proceeding from these tainted sources. Even so, there can be no reversal of the judgment without breaking down the barriers that separate the functions of a jury from those of an appellate court. People v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 34 N. E. 275;People v. Cohen, 223 N. Y. 406, 119 N. E. 886.

The lingering sense of uncertainty is emphasized in some degree by the testimony adduced for the defendant upon a motion for a new trial. The accomplices were exhibited upon the trial as self-confessed bandits. They are revealed upon the motion as telling contradictory tales to their prison associates and others, asserting the defendant's innocence out of court, while denouncing him upon the stand. One of the accomplices, the witness Woodbury, was examined and cross-examined by the judge in accordance with the intimation of this court that such a course should be pursued. People v. Arata, 254 N. Y. 565, 173 N. E. 868. He reaffirmed the testimony given before the jury. The other accomplice, Rossi, who upon the trial had been called as a witness for the defendant, but had ended by giving evidence of guilt, refused to open his mouth when called to testify upon the motion. After a full and platient hearing, the judge who listened to the witnesses arrived at the conclusion that the newly discovered evidence was insufficient to exact another trial. There was no probability in his judgment that the verdict would be different if the new evidence were heard. We find ourselves unable to say, in opposition to his judgment, that the probability exists. People v. Shilitano, 218 N. Y. 161, 112 N. E. 733, L. R. A. 1916F, 1044.

Contradictions and polluted sources do not avail without more to vitiate the judgment or to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Corapi
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • January 30, 1964
    ... ... Tendetnick, 237 App.Div. 9, 11, 12, 260 N.Y .S. 777, 778, 780; People v. Lytton, 257 N.Y. 310, 178 N.E. 290, 79 A.L.R. 503; People v. Becker, 215 N.Y. 126, 159, 109 N.E. 127, 137; People v. Arata, 255 N.Y. 374, 375, 174 N.E. 758) ...         This Court, by this opinion, has modified the sentence originally imposed by reducing it to the time already served [two days]. This decision is by a divided court, one of the Justices dissenting from the modification of the sentence and ... ...
  • People v. Landers
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 1934
    ...and we cannot reject it as incredible, even though we may in a proper case consider the credibility of witnesses. People v. Arata, 255 N. Y. 374, 174 N. E. 758. The evidence against the woman is largely circumstantial. She failed to take the stand. No presumption arises against her by reaso......
  • People v. Lytton
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 1931
    ...judgment without breaking down the barriers that separate the functions of a jury from those of an appellate court.’ People v. Arata, 255 N. Y. 374, 375, 174 N. E. 758. The judgment being upheld as to the facts, we are to consider whether the charge to the jury, unchallenged at the trial by......
  • People v. Pickett
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • December 11, 1959
    ...the judgment without breaking down the barriers that separate the functions of a jury from those of an appellate court.' People v. Arata, 255 N.Y. 374, 375, 174 N.E. 758.' I therefore dissent and vote to affirm the ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT