People v. Rakiec
| Decision Date | 03 December 1942 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y. 306,45 N.E.2d 812 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RAKIEC et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Tony Rakiec and Charles Shambrock were convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 260 App.Div. 452, 23 N.Y.S.2d 607, reversed, on the law and the facts, the judgment of conviction of the Chemung County Court, Newman, J., and granted a motion to resettle the order, 261 App.Div. 964,24 N.Y.S.2d 791, and the People of the State of New York appeal.
Affirmed.Walter B. Reynolds, Dist. Atty., of Elmira, for appellant.
J. R. Hoover, of Elmira, for respondent.
The two defendants were placed on trial for the crime of burglary in the third degree. Both were convicted. Under the order of the Appellate Division, there is no question here presented as to their guilt. The sole question is as to the scope and meaning of section 295-l of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section reads as follows:
What occurred was this: The District Attorney served a demand for a bill of particulars under section 295-l upon each of the defendants. There was no compliance with that demand. Upon the trial the defendant Shambrock was sworn as a witness and attempted to establish by his own testimony his presence at a place other than the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that his co-defendant was then with him and in his presence. Upon objection of the District Attorney, the court excluded such testimony.
There is thus squarely presented the question whether section 295-l of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is applicable to a defendant as a witness. We think it is not. In the view we take it is necessary to consider the question only from the standpoint of statutory construction.
The purpose of the statute was to prevent a defendant from obtaining acquittal of a crime of which he was guilty by calling a number of witnesses to testify to a false alibi with no prior opportunity afforded to the District Attorney to make any investigation of them or their story. As originally proposed, the statute was drafted by the committee on Criminal Courts and Procedure of the New York County Lawyers Association and approved by the American Bar Association. At the time of its adoption by our Legislature in 1935 (Laws 1935, c. 506) a similar statute had been adopted in the States of Michigan and Ohio. Like statutes have now been adopted in at least nine other states. The necessity for the legislation was evidently apparent over a considerable portion of the nation. What the defendant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Merritt
...as provided in K.S.A. 62--1341 aforementioned.' On the other hand, New York adopted the opposite approach in People v. Rakiec, 289 N.Y. 306, 308--309, 45 N.E.2d 812, 813--814 (1942): 'If more than a reading of the language of the statute and a consideration of its purpose were necessary, ru......
-
Alicea v. Gagnon
...statutory construction or application to guide them through this area. In the earliest case to consider the problem, People v. Rakiec, 289 N.Y. 306, 45 N.E.2d 812 (1942), the New York Court of Appeals compared two state statutes: one granting a defendant the right to testify in his own beha......
-
State v. Douglas
...L Rev 1, 12 (1894); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 578-582, 81 S.Ct. 756, 762-763, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961); People v. Rakiec, 289 N.Y. 306, 309, 45 N.E.2d 812, 813-814 (1942); Note, Due Process v. Defense Counsel's Unilateral Waiver of the Defendant's Right to Testify, 3 Hast Con L Q 517, ......
-
United States v. Bentvena
... ... They remained in Montreal and on May 25 Cotroni told Biase and Smith that he had gotten a phone call from the people in New York and that "Angie" and "Bootsie" were not anxious for new competition. They agreed to avoid this problem by telling Mancino that they had a ... 1900). It has been held by at least one state court that denial of the privilege deprives the accused of a fair trial. People v. Rakiec, 260 App. Div. 452, 23 N.Y.S.2d 607 (1940), aff'd 289 N.Y. 306, 405 N.E.2d 812 (1942). See also People v. Rosenzweig, 135 Misc. 324, 239 N.Y.S. 358 ... ...
-
Too little, too late: ineffective assistance of counsel, the duty to investigate, and pretrial discovery in criminal cases.
...here does not apply. (187.) See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 472 (1973). (188.) [section] 250.20(2). (189.) People v. Rakiec, 45 N.E.2d 812, 813 (N.Y. 1942) (emphasis added); see also People v. Ruiz, 419 N.Y.S.2d 864, 866 (Sup. Ct. 1999) ("The purpose of the alibi statutory scheme is to......