People v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 03 March 1949 |
| Citation | 84 N.E.2d 779,298 N.Y. 462 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HENDERSON et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Prosecution by the People of the State of New York against Fred E. Laman and Claude H. Henderson for conspiracy to commit the crimes of bribery and receiving unlawful fees. Appeal, by the People, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, from an order of said court, entered March 26, 1948, 273 App.Div. 377, 78 N.Y.S.2d 83, which (1) reversed, on the law and the facts, as to defendant Laman, a judgment of the Broome County Court (McAvoy, J.), rendered upon a verdict convicting said defendant of the crimes of conspiracy to commit bribery (Penal Law, ConsolLaws, c. 40, s 580), accepting a bribe as a public officer (Penal Law, s 372) and taking unlawful fees as a public officer (Penal Law, s 1826), and (2) dismissed the indictment against said defendant on the law.
Appeal by defendant Henderson, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, from an order of said Appellate Division, entered March 31, 1948, 273 App.Div. 377, 78 N.Y.S.2d 83, which unanimously affirmed a judgment of the Broome County Court (McAvoy, J.), rendered upon a verdict convicting said defendant of the crimes of conspiracy to commit bribery (Penal Law, s 580), accepting a bribe as a public officer (Penal Law, s 372) and taking unlawful fees as a public officer (Penal Law, s 1826).
Affirmed. Robert O. Brink, Dist. Atty., of Binghamton (Samuel W. Bernstein and Frederick J. Vavra, both of Binghamton, of counsel), for the People of the State of New York, appellant and respondent.
William E. Night and Donald W. Kramer, both of Binghamton, for Fred E. Laman, respondent.
Abraham E. Gold and James B. Gitlitz, both of Binghamton, for Claude H. Henderson, appellant.
At the times here in question the defendant Henderson was sealer of weights and measures of the City of Binghamton and the defendant Laman was in the service of the Department of Agriculture and Markets of this State as an inspector of weights and measures with jurisdiction in a number of counties. One of these was the county of Broome where the city of Binghamton is the county seat. After trial in the County Court of that county, both defendants in January, 1947, were convicted (1) of a conspiracy to commit bribery; (2) of having on numerous occasions accepted moneys as bribes; and (3) of having on those occasions received the same moneys as unlawful fees.
Conspiracy is a misdemeanor. Penal Law, ConsolLaws, c. 40, s 580. Bribery and taking unlawful fees are separate felonies. Penal Law, ss 2, 372, 1826. On each felony conviction, each of these two defendants was sentenced to imprisonment in a State prison for not less than two nor more than five years, the sentences to run concurrently and not consecutively. On the misdemeanor-conspiracy count, each defendant was committed to the county jail of Broome County for one year, but execution of these sentences was suspended on condition that the sentences imposed on the defendants under the felony counts be served.
The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division where the judgment against Henderson was unanimously affirmed and the judgment against Laman was reversed on the law and the facts, the indictment dismissed on the law and the defendant discharged, two of the Justices dissenting. One of the Justices then granted to Henderson a certificate upon which he has appealed to this court from the order affirming the judgment against him, while by a certificate of the same Justice the People have been permitted to bring here for review the order which reversed the judgment entered against Laman. See Code Crim.Proc. s 520, subd. 3.
In our opinion, the Appellate Division was right in taking the evidence against Laman to be less than sufficient to support a finding of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and in his case the order of the Appellate Division will accordingly be affirmed. What follows has reference to the case of the defendant Henderson.
The acceptance by him of bribes and unlawful fees was sworn to only by accomplices. There was, however, enough nonaccomplice testimony to entitle the jury to find that he and the accomplice witnesses had antecedently entered into a conspiracy to cause such unclean moneys to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Glubo
...of at least one overt act to effectuate the object of the conspiracy (Code Crim.Proc. § 398; Penal Law, § 583; People v. Henderson, 298 N.Y. 462, 467, 84 N.E.2d 779, 781; People v. Hines, 284 N.Y. 93, 112-113, 29 N.E.2d 483, 492-493). It should be here noted, however, that the five specific......
-
People v. Goldfeld
...with it has been established, such is sufficient for the jury to convict appellant of each crime charged (People v. Henderson, 298 N.Y. 462, 467, 84 N.E.2d 779, 781; People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348, 359, 14 N.E.2d 433, Appellant contends that the trial court's failure to marshall the eviden......
-
State v. Saiz
...make his statements admissible as evidence of his felonious intent. See Massey v. State, 19 So.2d 476 (Miss., 1944); People v. Henderson, 298 N.Y. 462, 84 N.E.2d 779 (1949); Opanowich v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 342, 83 S.E.2d 432 The second category of hearsay statements include those made by......
-
People v. Ross
...573, 575, citing People v. Kress, 284 N.Y. 452, 31 N.E.2d 898 and People v. Laman, 273 App.Div. 377, 78 N.Y.S.2d 83, affd. 298 N.Y. 462, 84 N.E.2d 779). Ms. Hagood's admissions on cross-examination that she could not, at the time of the trial, identify the defendant as the man she met on th......