People v. Orr

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFINCH
Citation200 N.E. 783,270 N.Y. 193
PartiesPEOPLE v. ORR.
Decision Date03 March 1936

270 N.Y. 193
200 N.E. 783

PEOPLE
v.
ORR.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 3, 1936.


Edgar Orr was convicted of unlawful entry with intent to commit a felony, larceny and malicious mischief therein, and from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (245 App.Div. 719, 281 N.Y.S. 1013), which affirmed the judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions, New York City, he appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.


[270 N.Y. 194]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Samuel Segal, of New York City, for appellant.

William Copeland Dodge, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Ambrose J. Delehanty, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.


FINCH, Judge.

The defendant-appellant has been convicted of the crime of unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit a larceny, felony, and malicious mischief therein. The Appellate Division has sustained the conviction, two justices dissenting. This appeal is by permission of a justice of the Appellate Division.

The evidence in the record may be summarized as follows:

On January 29, 1935, at 6:35 p. m., a detective employed by the Holmes Protective Agency encountered the defendant running down the freight side or fire exit stairs from the second floor of a twenty-story building. The detective, who had come to the freight side of the building from the Holmes office, which was on the second floor, asked the defendant from whence he came, and he stated that he was coming from a firm on the fifth floor. Investigation[270 N.Y. 195]showed that this firm had already been closed for the

[200 N.E. 784]

night. A policeman, who had arrived, asked the defendant what he was doing in the building and he explained that he had been sent by a trucking concern to obtain a package for delivery. This also proved to be false. At 7:50 p. m. a Holmes detective found a screen panel, which was normally attached to the door on the seventeenth floor, leaning against the wall on that floor. Nobody testified that he had placed the screen on the door that evening, but there was testimony that the floor had been closed and that the Holmes Company had given a reply signal which meant that every screen and door was locked. The defendant when taken into custody with him no bag, no keys, nor tools of any kind. There was testimony that many people were working late in the building and that they were constantly going up and down.

A defendant may be convicted on circumstantial evidence, but with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • People v. McErlean
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • October 31, 1962
    ...mens rea, the cases against McErlean, Callahan and Collucci must fall (People v. Calloway, 297 N.Y. 931, 79 N.E.2d 820; People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 200 N.E. 783; People v. Cooperman, 279 N.Y. 599, 17 N.E.2d 456; People v. Mantin, 184 App.Div. 767, 172 N.Y.S. 371; People v. Schaffel, 286 Ap......
  • Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • April 11, 1973
    ...paternity proceedings whereby the public might be relieved from the support of those liable to become public charges'. 270 N.Y. at 192, 200 N.E. at 783. See also Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Gavin, 245 App.Div. 545, 283 N.Y.S. 242 (1935). Since the rationale of the statute at issue is ......
  • United States v. Warden of Clinton Prison
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 14, 1939
    ...of the New York State Penal Law, is shown by evidence sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 200 N.E. 783, is a case with considerable 29 F. Supp. 491 At the close of the People's case, counsel for the defendant moved to discharge th......
  • People v. Tinston
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • February 28, 1957
    ...matter how strong, does not confer power where it is otherwise lacking. People v. Kobryn, 3 A.D.2d 132, 158 N.Y.S.2d 602; People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 196, 200 N.E. 783, 784. In People v. Orr, supra, the unanimous Court of Appeals, in reversing a conviction for unlawful entry, said: 'His [d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • People v. McErlean
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • October 31, 1962
    ...mens rea, the cases against McErlean, Callahan and Collucci must fall (People v. Calloway, 297 N.Y. 931, 79 N.E.2d 820; People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 200 N.E. 783; People v. Cooperman, 279 N.Y. 599, 17 N.E.2d 456; People v. Mantin, 184 App.Div. 767, 172 N.Y.S. 371; People v. Schaffel, 286 Ap......
  • Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • April 11, 1973
    ...paternity proceedings whereby the public might be relieved from the support of those liable to become public charges'. 270 N.Y. at 192, 200 N.E. at 783. See also Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Gavin, 245 App.Div. 545, 283 N.Y.S. 242 (1935). Since the rationale of the statute at issue is ......
  • United States v. Warden of Clinton Prison
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 14, 1939
    ...of the New York State Penal Law, is shown by evidence sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 200 N.E. 783, is a case with considerable 29 F. Supp. 491 At the close of the People's case, counsel for the defendant moved to discharge th......
  • People v. Tinston
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • February 28, 1957
    ...matter how strong, does not confer power where it is otherwise lacking. People v. Kobryn, 3 A.D.2d 132, 158 N.Y.S.2d 602; People v. Orr, 270 N.Y. 193, 196, 200 N.E. 783, 784. In People v. Orr, supra, the unanimous Court of Appeals, in reversing a conviction for unlawful entry, said: 'His [d......
  • 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