People v. Kaminsky

Decision Date13 May 1913
Citation102 N.E. 515,208 N.Y. 389
PartiesPEOPLE v. KAMINSKY.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Frank Kaminsky was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree, and from a judgment of the Appellate Division (137 App. Div. 941,122 N. Y. Supp. 687) affirming the conviction, he appeals. Affirmed.Henry Hirschberg, of Newburgh, for appellant.

Charles S. Whitman, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert S. Johnstone, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

CULLEN, C. J.

The defendant, a boy 11 years old, was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions, Children's part, of having stolen a pocketbook from the person of one Sadie Klein, and sentenced to the House of Refuge. From an order of the Appellate Division, affirming such conviction, this appeal is taken.

Several objections are raised to the validity of this judgment .

[1] First. It is urged that there was no evidence before the court that the defendant was under the age of 16 years, a condition necessary to give the court jurisdiction of his offense which-the larceny being from the person-would have been a felony if committed by an adult. Penal Code, § 531; now Penal Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40) § 1296. But section 699 of the same Code (now Penal Law, § 2186) provided that a felony not capital or punishable by imprisonment for life when committed by a child under 16 should be only a misdemeanor. There was no oral evidence as to the defendant's age, but he was present in the court in person, and it was provided by section 19 of the Penal Code (Penal Law, § 817) that the court or jury might determine the age of a child by personal inspection. This is the general rule prevailing in nearly all jurisdictions apart from any statutory provision on the subject. 1 Greenleaf's Evidence, § 14 L; 1 Wigmore on Ev. § 222, and see cases there cited.

[2] Second. It is next objected that the statute authorizing the prosecution of the defendant in the Special Sessions violated the constitutional provision (article 1, § 6) that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, except on the presentation or indictment of the grand jury. Whatever the original view of the subject may have been, the present judgment is that within this and similar constitutional provisions the character of the offense is determined by the nature of the punishment rather than by its supposed moral turpitude. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup . Ct. 935, 29 L. Ed. 89;People ex rel. Cosgriff v. Craig, 195 N . Y. 190, 88 N. E. 38. Even were moral turpitude still the test, the legislation before us could not be condemned because plainly the immature age of the offender might well be considered to diminish the extent of its moral transgression. The statute reduces all crimes committed by children under 16 to the grade of misdemeanors, and the punishment which the court has power to impose is only the same as that which may be inflicted for other misdemeanors.

[3] Third. Nor are such juvenile offenders deprived of the constitutional right of trial by jury, for that right is limited by section 23 of article 6 of the Constitution, which expressly provides that Courts of Special Sessions shall have such jurisdiction of offenses of the grade of misdemeanors as shall be prescribed by law. People ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 83 N. Y. 240.

Fourth. The failure to ask the defendant whether he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him was not an error for which judgment should be reversed. This requirement, found in section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, existed at common law in the cases of felony, and the failure to comply with it is fatal to the judgment. Messner v. People, 45 N. Y. 1;People v. Faber, 199 N . Y. 256, 92 N. E. 674,20 Ann. Cas. 879;People v. Nesce, 201 N . Y. 111, 94 N. E. 655. Section 480,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Brown v. Kingsley Books, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Abril 1956
    ...the defendant is not entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of constitutional right. N.Y.Const. art. VI, § 18; see People v. Kaminsky, 208 N.Y. 389, 394, 102 N.E. 515, 516; People ex rel. Cosgriff v. Craig, 195 N.Y. 190, 195-196, 88 N.E. 38, 39, 40; see, also, N.Y. City Criminal Courts Act......
  • State v. Owens
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 4 Junio 1969
    ...States v. Reef, 268 F.Supp. 1015 (D.Colo.1967); People v. Bellinger, 269 N.Y. 265, 199 N.E. 213 (Ct.App.1935); People v. Kaminsky, 208 N.Y. 389, 102 N.E. 515 (Ct.App.1913); State v. Hyman, 164 N.C. 411, 79 S.E. 284 (Sup.Ct.1913); Annotation, 24 A.L.R. 1002 So, in In re Buehrer, Supra, 50 N.......
  • People v. Marsh
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 25 Junio 1965
    ...v. Lyon, 99 N.Y. 210, 216-217, 223-224, 1 N.E. 673, 674, 678, 679; People v. Hughes, 137 N.Y. 29, 34, 32 N.E. 1105, 1106; People v. Kaminsky, 208 N.Y. 389, 102 N.E. 515) and this principle must be strictly adhered to (People ex rel. Cosgriff v. Craig, 195 N.Y. 190, 196, 88 N.E. 38, Here the......
  • People v. Moses
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 20 Septiembre 1968
    ...within the City of New York. 7 There is an unbroken consistency to these holdings. 8 And although the defendant in People v. Kaminsky, 208 N.Y. 389, 102 N.E. 515 (the leading case) argued that he had 'been deprived of his liberty without due process of law and denied the equal protection of......
  • 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