People v. Maine
| Decision Date | 26 February 1901 |
| Citation | 166 N.Y. 50,59 N.E. 696 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MAINE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.
Patrick H. Maine was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court (64 N. Y. Supp. 579), affirming the judgment of the trial court, he appeals. Reversed.
Richard R. Thurston, for appellant.
Franklin F. Aldridge, Dist. Atty., for the People.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree. The evidence tended to show that between 12 and 1 o'clock on the morning of May 29, 1898, the defendant was walking northerly on the easterly side of Sullivan street, in the city of Elmira, towards his home on that street, and upon approaching the corner of Second street, which intersects Sullivan street, he heard noises as of an altercation, and upon coming nearer he saw his brother, John Maine, just south of the south crosswalk at the junction of Second and Sullivan streets, engaged in a fight with two other persons, one the deceased, James Murphy, and the other Frank Bower. The defendant had but one hand, his right arm having been amputated at the wrist several years before. He instantly crossed Sullivan street, and went to help his brother, calling out to his brother's assailants to let him alone or they would get cut or stabbed. He drew out his pocket or jack knife, having a single blade two and a quarter inches long, opened it with his teeth, and, rushing into the fight, engaged with Murphy, and in the contest struck him a single blow with his knife. The blade reached his heart, and caused his death a few minutes later. The defense was justifiable homicide, in that the defendant had reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of Murphy to do some great personal injury to his brother, and that there was imminent danger of such design being accomplished (Pen. Code, § 205), and also, having lawfully gone to his brother's relief, he became involved in the like danger, and had the like right to defend himself. The evidence on the part of the defendant was directed to the support of this defense. The fight between John Maine and the deceased and Bower was active for a minute before the defendant came up and discovered that his brother was engaged in it.
The evidence tends to show that the altercation between John Maine and the deceased and Bower began on Second street, 218 feet south of its intersection with Sullivan street. The defendant assigns error, and we think properly, in that the people were permitted to prove, notwithstanding the defendant's objection, such acts and declarations of John Maine, in the absence of the defendant and before he came upon the scene, as tended to show that John Maine invited the fight and was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chiarello
...Menilla, 177 Iowa 283, 158 N.W. 645, 647 (Sup.Ct.1916); People v. Dugas, 310 Ill. 291, 141 N.E. 769 (Sup.Ct.1923); People v. Maine, 166 N.Y. 50, 59 N.E. 696 (Ct.App.1901); People v. Young, 12 A.D.2d 262, 210 N.Y.S.2d 358 (App.Div.1961); Willingham v. State, 72 Ga.App. 372, 33 S.E.2d 721 (Ct......
-
People v. Young
...the public policy where the felony charged requires proof of a specific intent and the issue is justifiable homicide (cf. People v. Maine, 166 N.Y. 50, 59 N.E. 696), it is not relevant in a prosecution for assault in the third degree where it is only necessary to show that the defendant kno......
-
People v. Melendez
...is unacceptable, and would discourage legitimate intervention. The history of this issue in New York is checkered. In People v. Maine, 166 N.Y. 50, 59 N.E. 696, defendant claimed that it was reversible error to permit the prosecutor to introduce into evidence that the person Maine was prote......
-
Dickerson v. State
...jealous of the rights of parties and that they be fully protected in their legal rights. (Carter v. Wakeman, (Ore.) 78 P. 362; People v. Maine, (N. Y.) 59 N.E. 696.) We deem it proper to direct the court's attention to the following cases which show conclusively that even though a portion o......