People v. Kief

Citation27 N.E. 556,126 N.Y. 661
PartiesPEOPLE v. KIEF.
Decision Date05 May 1891
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

E. M. Wilson and Henry M. Aylesworth, Dist. Atty., for the people.

J. I. Sayles, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The defendant, John Kief, was indicted jointly with Carrie C. Howard for the premeditated killing of her husband, alleged to have been effected by administering to him arsenic, upon several occasions, in the month of December, 1884. The accused demanded separate trials, and Carrie Howard, being first tried, was acquitted by the jury. This defendant, Kief, however, upon his trial, was found guilty as charged in the indictment, and a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree was rendered against him. Upon an appeal to the general term of the supreme court that judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered, because of the commission of errors of law in the course of his trial. The people have appealed to this court, and endeavor to sustain the conviction at the oyer and terminer.

We quite agree with the general term that a new trial should be awarded to this defendant. That court has based its order mainly upon the ground of the erroneous admission of evidence as to certain statements of Carrie Howard made at times prior to October, 1884, and as to certain acts performed by her subsequent to the death of her husband; all of which may have tended, perhaps, to incriminate her, but which certainly could not be made use of in order to inculpate this defendant. He came to work regularly for the deceased some time in October, 1884, and that was the earliest time when the evidence tends to establish the commencement of the intimacy or of any conspiracy between the two accused. If the guilt of one of several defendants who are jointly indicted for a felony is sought to be established by evidence showing, or tending to show, a conspiracy between him and the other defendants for the commission of the felonious act, evidence as to acts or statements of the others must be confined to such as were made or done at times when the proofs in the case permit of a belief that a conspiracy existed, and when, therefore, the acts or statements might have been in furtherance of the common design. Whatever may have been said or done by the several persons accused of conspiring to commit the crime, before the time when according to the evidence the conspiracy was formed, or subsequent to the time when the conspiracyterminated, by the accomplishment of the common purpose, or by abandonment, is inadmissible as evidence against the others. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 111, and 3 Greenl. Ev. § 94; and see People v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 307, 18 N. E. Rep. 156, and authorities there referred to. We need not, I think, discuss this question, inasmuch as the opinion of the general term has sufficiently explained the application of a rule well settled by authority.

This defendant insists that it was error to reject the record of the acquittal of Carrie C. Howard, and that view was taken by one of the learned justices at the general term. Concerning that question we need speak only briefly. Before the enactment of section 29 of the Penal Code, where a party was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • State v. Petry, 14014
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 16, 1980
    ...626:8 (1974); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2C:2-6 (West 1979); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-1-13 (1978); N.Y.Penal Code § 29 (1895) (see People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 663-664, 27 N.E. 556, 557 (1891)); N.D.Rev.Codes § 8060 (1895); Okla.Stat. § 5523 (1890); Penn.Cons.Stat. 18 § 306 (Cum.Supp.1979); S.C.Code § 16-1......
  • Von Patzoll v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 27, 1947
    ...99 Ga. 50, 25 S.E. 760, 761; Montague v. State, 17 Fla. 662, 665; Goins v. State, 46 Ohio St. 457, 21 N.E. 476, 478; People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 27 N.E. 556, 557; State v. Martino, 27 N.M. 1, 192 P. 507, 509; Note, 24 A.L.R. p. 603; Note, 8 Ann.Cas. 439; United States v. Hartwell, 26 Fed.......
  • Gutierrez v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1994
    ...with crime, always has the right to have the jury or the triers of the facts determine anew every element of guilt. People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 663, 27 N.E. 556; People v. Walker, 198 N.Y. 329, 334, 91 N.E. 806. For this reason doubt has been expressed as to whether the doctrine known to ......
  • Standefer v. United States, 79-383
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1980
    ...872, 880-881, 108 So. 143, 144-145 (1926)); Mont.Penal Code Ann. § 1854 (1895); N.Y. Penal Code § 29 (1895) (see People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 663-664, 27 N.E. 556, 557 (1891)); N.D.Rev.Code Crim.Proc. § 8060 (1895); Okla.Stat. § 5523 (1890); S.D.Stat.Ann. § 8520 (1899); Utah Comp. Laws § 4......
  • 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