People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 12 November 1970 |
| Citation | 27 N.Y.2d 864,265 N.E.2d 543,317 N.Y.S.2d 19 |
| Parties | , 265 N.E.2d 543 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James ROBINSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Max Feigin, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, New York City (Harold Roland Shapiro, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
By a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, Martinis, J., the defendant was convicted of common-law murder in first degree after a trial before a jury and he appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion and leave to appeal was granted by an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals.
In the Court of Appeals the defendant argued that reversible error was committed by compelling the defendant to submit to a blood test and by permitting evidence of his blood type to be considered by the jury, that courts permitted reversible error in refusing to allow defense counsel to examine hospital records pertaining to prosecution witness and that reference by prosecution witness to other crimes committed or attempted to be committed by defendant constituted prejudicial error.
Judgment affirmed. Proof that defendant had type 'A' blood and that the semen found in and on the body of decedent was derived from a man with type 'A' blood was of no probative value in the case against defendant in view of the large proportion of the general population having blood of this type and, therefore, should not have been admitted. But in view of the careful limitation on its consideration by the jury in the court's instructions and of the fully adequate case made out by other proof against the defendant it was not prejudicial.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pollitt, 12431
...this case. 15 We find no error in this ruling. In pressing this claim, the defendant places great stress on People v. Robinson, 27 N.Y.2d 864, 265 N.E.2d 543, 317 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1970), which excluded evidence of type "A" blood as having no probative value in view of the large portion of the g......
-
Bryant v. Thomas
...given the O blood type's statistical commonality amongst the population in the United States.9 See People v. Robinson, 27 N.Y.2d 864, 865, 265 N.E.2d 543, 543, 317 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1970) ("Proof that defendant had type ‘A’ blood and that the semen found in and on the body of decedent was derive......
-
Abe A., Matter of
...371).4 Suffice it here to say that People v. Macedonio, 42 N.Y.2d 944, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 366 N.E.2d 1355 and People v. Robinson, 27 N.Y.2d 864, 317 N.Y.S.2d 19, 265 N.E.2d 543, cited for the contrary proposition by the respondent, each dealt with type A blood, which is found in 40% of the ...
-
State v. Gray
...semen was deposited in perhaps a consensual sexual encounter by Griffith who had blood type "A". Neither People v. Robinson, 27 N.Y.2d 864, 317 N.Y.S.2d 19, 265 N.E.2d 543 (1970) (finding blood grouping test results "of no probative value" but holding their admission non-prejudicial in ligh......