People v. Morris
| Decision Date | 04 June 1975 |
| Citation | 372 N.Y.S.2d 210,36 N.Y.2d 877,334 N.E.2d 10 |
| Parties | , 334 N.E.2d 10 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant v. Ross Edward MORRIS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John M. Braisted, Jr., Dist. Atty. (Norman C. Morse, Staten Island, of counsel), for appellant.
Abraham Werfel, Jamaica, for respondent.
We agree with the Appellate Division, 42 A.D.2d 968, 347 N.Y.S.2d 975 in its memorandum for reversal that the summation by the prosecutor was improper and that the history portion of the autopsy report should not have been excluded. These two errors taken together constituted reversible error which required reversal of the conviction and a new trial.
However, we cannot adopt the Appellate Division's view that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on circumstantial evidence. While we would prefer that the instruction on circumstantial evidence state that the hypothesis of guilt should flow naturally from the facts proved, and be consistent with them, and that the facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (People v. Lagana, 36 N.Y.2d 71, 74, 365 N.Y.S.2d 147, 324 N.E.2d 534; People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334; People v. Borrero, 26 N.Y.2d 430, 434--435, 311 N.Y.S.2d 475, 259 N.E.2d 902; People v. Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363, 365--366, 292 N.Y.S.2d 861, 239 N.E.2d 617), we believe that the trial court's instruction * was acceptable.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
* The court charged that
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franza v. Stinson
...language need not be quoted verbatim, only that the charge clearly convey the exclusion concept. Thus, in People v. Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877, 372 N.Y.S.2d 210, 334 N.E.2d 10 (1975), the Court of Appeals upheld a charge which did not include the "moral certainty language"; rather, the charge ex......
- People v. Anderson
-
People v. Ford
...the reasoning of the two earlier cases (see, 47 N.Y.2d at pp. 201-202, 204, 417 N.Y.S.2d 452, 391 N.E.2d 452). People v. Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877, 372 N.Y.S.2d 210, 334 N.E.2d 10, is not to the contrary. There we upheld a charge which did not state "that the facts proved must exclude * * * eve......
-
People v. Mullins
...in a circumstantial evidence case (see, People v. Gonzalez, 54 N.Y.2d 729, 442 N.Y.S.2d 980, 426 N.E.2d 474; People v. Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877, 878, 372 N.Y.S.2d 210, 334 N.E.2d 10). We further find that defendant's challenge to the search of his wife's car was untimely (see, CPL 255.20[1]. I......