People v. Klipfel
| Decision Date | 10 October 1899 |
| Citation | 160 N.Y. 371,54 N.E. 788 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KLIPFEL. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.
Frank E. Klipfel was indicted for auditing and allowing, and conniving at the auditing and allowing, of a fraudulent claim against the county of Erie. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained by the trial court, but the appellate division reversed the case (55 N. Y. Supp. 789), and defendant appeals. The appellate division is affirmed.
The defendant demurred to an indictment found against him by the grand jury of the county of Erie, on the ground, among others, ‘that more than one crime is charged in the indictment, within the meaning of sections 278, 279, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.’ The trial court sustained the demurrer, and the interlocutory judgment entered thereon was reversed by the appellate division. The indictment reads as follows: ‘Supreme Court, Erie County. The People of the State of New York against Frank E. Klipfel. The grand jury of the county of Erie by this indictment accuse Frank E. Klipfel of the crime of knowingly auditing and allowing, and consenting to and conniving at the auditing and allowing, of a false and fraudulent claim and demand against a county, while then and there being a public officer, a part of whose duties was to take part in auditing claims and demands against such county, committed as follows, to wit: That at all the times herein mentioned Frank E. Klipfel was a duly elected, qualified, and acting public officer, to wit, a supervisor of the Sixth ward of the city of Buffalo, and a member of the board of supervisors of the county of Erie, and that as such member of said board of supervisors the said Frank E. Klipfel was at all such times charged with the duty, among others, of taking part in the auditing and allowing of claims and demands upon said county of Erie. That one John W. Neff was at all of such times the duly elected, qualified, and acting county auditor of said county, and that the said board of supervisors and the said county auditor were at all of such times duly authorized to audit and allow claims and charges against said county. That on the 6th day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, at the city of Buffalo, in the said county of Erie, the said Frank E. Klipfel feloniously did knowingly and corruptly introduce, and cause to be introduced, vote for and cause to be passed and adopted by said board of supervisors of said county, at a session thereof duly and regularly called and held, a resolution directing that an order be drawn on the county treasurer of said county in favor of Henry L. Steiner, John P. Underhill, John H. Stock, George H. Blanchard, Frank E. Klipfel, George F. Aberth, Philip Erbes, members of the committee on almshouse and county hospital of said board of supervisors; George W. Briggs, chairman of said board of supervisors; John G. Schlotzer, keeper of the almshouse of said county; John W. Neff, county auditor of said county; Edward J. Gilray, medical superintendent of the county hospital of said county,-for the necessary expenses, not to exceed seventy dollars ($70), each theretofore incurred by the said Henry L. Steiner, John P. Underhill, John H. Stock, George H. Blanchard, Frank E. Klipfel, George F. Aberth, Philip Erbes, George W. Briggs, John G. Schlotzer, John W. Neff, and Edward J. Gilray in making an investigation pursuant to the direction of the said board of supervisors of a hospital in the city of New York; and the said Frank E. Klipfel, on the day and year last aforesaid, at the city of Buffalo, aforesaid, feloniously did knowingly and corruptly make and prepare and verify, under his oath then and there duly taken, and cause to be made, prepared, and verified by his said oath, and then and there feloniously did knowingly and corruptly present, and cause to be presented, for audit and allowance, to the said John W. Neff, as such county auditor, who then and there audited and allowed the same, a false and fraudulent account, bill, and voucher against the county of Erie, a municipal corporation, in the words and figures following, to wit:
“The County of Erie, Department Board of Supervisors, to Frank E. Klipfel, Dr.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦1896.¦Order. ¦Items. ¦Price. ¦Amount.¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦Oct. ¦To expenses as per relative to New York Consumptive Hospital ¦$70 00'¦
¦6. ¦as per resolution of the board ¦” ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tracy C. Becker, for appellant.
Thomas Penney, Dist. Atty., for the People.
PARKER, C. J. (after stating the facts).
An indictment containing but one count, and charging therein two distinct crimes, is bad for duplicity. Code Cr. Proc. §§ 278, 279. The objection not only may, but must, be taken by demurrer. People v. Tower, 135 N. Y. 457, 32 N. E. 145. The object of the statute is to contribute towards that general policy of the law that aims to apprise a person charged with crime of the exact nature of the case that the people will attempt to prove against him, to the end that he may make full preparation to meet it. The test...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grady v. Artuz
......The children testified at trial, as did their parents and teachers. In addition to medical evidence, the People submitted the expert testimony of Eileen Treacy on the subject of certain behavioral and psychological symptoms exhibited by victims of child abuse. ...This statutory prohibition codified well-established New York common law. See People v. Klipfel, 160 N.Y. 371, 374, 54 N.E. 788 (1899) ("An indictment containing but one count and charging two distinct crimes, is bad for duplicity."). ......
-
People v. Roderman
...... Ed.] 248-254; People ex rel. Poulos v. McDonnell, 302 N.Y. 89, 91, 96 N.E.2d 614, 615; People v. Santoro, 229 N.Y. 277, 281, 284, 128 N.E. 234, 235; People v. Miller, 143 App.Div. 251, 256, 128 N.Y.S. 549, 552, aff'd. (on opinion below) 202 N.Y. 618, 96 N.E. 1125; People v. Klipfel, 160 N.Y. 371, 376, 54 N.E. 788, 790; De Dieu v. People, 22 N.Y. 178, 183-184; People v. Connors, 13 Misc. 582, 585, 35 N.Y.S. 472, 474; People v. Rynders, 12 Wend. 425, 429-430. . 7 Justice Fisher's allusion to 'crimes not charged in the indictment' had reference, of course, to separate counts ......
-
People v. Davis
......Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656). If a count charges more than one offense, it fails to meet these requirements and is void for duplicity (see, CPL 200.30 People v. Keindl, supra, 68 N.Y.2d at 417, 509 N.Y.S.2d 790, 502 N.E.2d 577; People v. Klipfel, 160 N.Y. 371, 54 N.E. 788; People v. Rosado, 64 A.D.2d 172, 409 N.Y.S.2d 216). The proscription against duplicitous counts also seeks to prevent the possibility that "individual jurors might vote to convict a defendant of that count on the basis of different offenses", in effect, permitting a ......
-
People v. Ferguson
...... Objections that an indictment does not conform to the requirements of sections 275 and 276 or of 278 and 279 of the Code must be taken only by demurrer. (People v. [55 Misc.2d 826] Conroy, 97 N.Y. 62, 70; People v. Klipfel, 160 N.Y. 371, 374, 54 N.E. 788, 790.) And section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, so far as pertinent here, that:. 'The defendant may demur to an indictment, or any count thereof, when it appears upon the face thereof, * * *. 2. That the indictment does not conform substantially ......