People v. Cardillo
| Decision Date | 31 December 1912 |
| Citation | 100 N.E. 715,207 N.Y. 70 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CARDILLO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Westchester County.
Donato Cardillo was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.John J. Hughes, of White Plains, for appellant.
Lee Parsons Davis, of White Plains, for the People.
There is no occasion for a discussion of the facts in this case further than to say that the evidence presented an issue for the jury, which was submitted to them fairly, and which, we think, they disposed of correctly.
[1][2] One error of law was committed by the learned trial judge in the admission of testimony, but we are satisfied that it did not affect the result; and therefore it is our duty to disregard it. Code Crim. Proc. § 542. As it might occur in other cases, however, where it would prove seriously harmful, if passed over now without comment, we feel bound to call attention to it.
The defendant took the stand in his own behalf. On cross-examination he denied that he had ever served time in Trenton jail after a conviction in New Jersey, or ever served a term of 1 year and 25 days' imprisonment for striking a man in the eye in that state; and he also denied that he had ever told Coroner Squire that he had been so convicted and imprisoned.
Coroner Squire was subsequently called as a witness for the prosecution in rebuttal, and testified as follows:
It was not permissible to prove the defendant's conviction of crime in this way. In removing the disqualification of convicted persons as witnesses, the Legislature prescribed the methods, and the only methods, by which a conviction can be proved. See People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241. Section 832 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: ‘A person who has been convicted of a crime or misdemeanor is notwithstanding a competent witness in a civil or criminal action or special proceeding; but the conviction may be proved, for the purpose of affecting the weight of his testimony, either by the record, or by his cross-examination, upon which he must answer any question relevant to that inquiry; and the party cross-examining him is not concluded by his answer to such a question.’ Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares that the rules of evidence in civil cases are applicable also to criminal cases; and section 2444 of the Penal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derrick v. Wallace
...but, if proved at all, it must be proved either by the record or by cross-examination. Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y. 298;People v. Cardillo, 207 N. Y. 70, 100 N. E. 715, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 255. Anciently an outlawed felon was said to have a wolf's head (caput lupinum), so that any one might k......
- In re Grade Crossing Com'rs of City of Buffalo
-
People v. Hayes
...123 [1913]). Rather than prohibit such testimony outright, courts permitted impeachment based on prior convictions (see e.g. People v Cardillo, 207 NY 70, 72 [1912]). As the law has developed, a criminal defendant who chooses to testify, like any other civil or criminal witness, may be cros......
-
De Gregoria v. Queensboro Farm Products, Inc.
...appellant to abide the event. There was no evidence that appellant was convicted of a crime. Civil Practice Act, § 350; People v. Cardillo, 207 N.Y. 70, 100 N.E. 715. It was therefore prejudicial error for the court to instruct the jury concerning the effect of a conviction on the credibili......