People v. Herrmann
| Decision Date | 19 January 1961 |
| Citation | 173 N.E.2d 52,212 N.Y.S.2d 77,9 N.Y.2d 665 |
| Parties | , 173 N.E.2d 52 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. George HERRMANN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 10 A.D.2d 871, 199 N.Y.S.2d 793.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, second-degree assault, and petit larceny. That County Court, Queens County, Miller B. Moran, J., rendered judgment, and the defendant appealed from the judgment and from intermediate orders.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, dismissed the appeal from the intermediate orders, and held that it was error to permit a detective to testify that witness called by the state had previously identified the defendant, but that such error did not require reversal, where there was uncontradicted evidence produced by the State establishing beyond any doubt the defendant's guilt. Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., dissented as to affirmance of judgment of conviction and voted to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals for enlargement of time.
The Court of Appeals, 8 N.Y.2d 1006, 205 N.Y.S.2d 348, granted the motion for enlargement of time and set the case down for argument during the October, 1960 session of the Court of Appeals.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered upon the authority of the dissenting memorandum in the Appellate Division.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Malloy
...evidence of this bolstering testimony was clearly erroneous (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841; People v. Herrmann, 9 N.Y.2d 665, 212 N.Y.S.2d 77, 173 N.E.2d 52). However, in light of the numerous confessions of the defendant's guilt, the error was not prejudicial (People v......
-
People v. Jones
...doubt is a doubt for which there is a 'substantial reason'. We have never directly passed upon this question. In People v. Herrmann, 9 N.Y.2d 665, 212 N.Y.S.2d 77, 173 N.E.2d 52, we reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial upon the authority or the dissenting memorandum in the Appellat......
-
People v. Caserta
...contrary to the rulings in People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841; People v. Cioffi (supra); People v. Herrmann, 9 N.Y.2d 665, 212 N.Y.S.2d 77, 173 N.E.2d 52. Prior to the adoption of section 393--b of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1927, the rule had long been that it was re......
- Tausik v. Tausik