People v. McCormack
| Decision Date | 28 October 1892 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 26,135 N.Y. 663 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. McCORMACK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.
Frank McCormack was indicted for murder in the first degree for shooting Edward Gillespie. From a judgment of the general term (19 N. Y. Supp. 282) affirming a judgment of conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, rendered in the court of general sessions in and for the city and county of New York, on the verdict of a jury, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Seaman Miller, for appellant.
De Lancey Nicoll, (Henry B. B. Stapler, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel,) for the People.
The defendant was indicted in the general sessions of the city and county of New York for murder in the first degree, and was upon his trial convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. After the verdict, and before judgment thereon, he moved for a new trial, which was denied. After the entry of the judgment he appealed therefrom to the general term of the supreme court, where his conviction was affirmed, and then he appealed to this court. The appeal brings before us only questions of law raised by exceptions taken upon the trial to the rulings of the trial judge. Code Crim. Proc. § 519. Our attention is called to but one exception, and that was taken to the ruling of the trial judge overruling defendant's objection to the following question: ‘Is it not a fact that in the month of September, 1890, two months, or about, prior to Gillespie's death, in a saloon known as the ‘Manhattan,’ in Chatham square, that you drew a pistol on two disreputable women, and threatened to shoot them, and didn't Rowe, the bartender, draw a revolver, and, pointing it at you, did he not say, ‘Drop that pistol, or I will blow your damned brains out?’' The defendant had been examined as a witness on his own behalf, and this question was put to him by the prosecution on his cross-examination. The defendant, having made himself a witness, was subject to the same rules of examination as any other witness, and the question was competent to affect his credibility. People v. Casey, 72 N. Y. 393;People v. Irving, 95 N. Y. 541. The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.
* State Report Title: People v. McCormick
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Branch
... ... unless such evidence is directed to a time at or before the ... commission of the offense charged. ( People v. Fong ... Ching (Cal.), 20 P. 396; People v. McSweeney ... (Cal.), 38 P. 743; State v. Ewing (Ore.), 149 P.2d ... 765 (771.) ... ...
-
People v. Johnston
...impeaching his credibility in his capacity as a witness. People v. Tice, 131 N. Y. 651, 30 N. E. 494,15 L. R. A. 669;People v. McCormick, 135 N. Y. 663, 664,32 N. E. 26;People v. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73, 84,34 N. E. 730;People v. De Garmo, 179 N. Y. 130, 134,71 N. E. 736;People v. Hinksman, 1......
-
Bates v. State
...not apply where the defendant himself testifies in his own behalf. Whart. Cr. Ev. secs. 430, 431-2; 1 Thomps. Trials, secs. 649, 650, 651; 135 N.Y. 663; 2 West. Underhill on Ev. p. 497, sec. 346; 93 Mich. 38; 13 So. 229; 16 Mich. 40; 13 So. 681; 22 S.W. 1039; 33 P. 256. 2. It is apparent th......
-
Commonwealth v. Croson
... ... (1912) 464; Rex v ... Ferguson, 2 Criminal Appeal Rep. 250; Rex. v. Jones, ... 3 Criminal Appeal Rep. 67; Com. v. Racco, 225 ... Pa. 113; People v. Giblin, 115 N.Y. 196; People ... v. McCormick, 135 N.Y. 663; People v. Webster, ... 139 N.Y. 73; People v. Hooghkerk, 96 N.Y. 149; ... State v ... ...