People v. Romano
| Decision Date | 10 January 1939 |
| Citation | 18 N.E.2d 634,279 N.Y. 392 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROMANO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anthony Romano was convicted in the County Court of Queens County of the crime of rape in the first degree, and he appeals by permission from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, entered July 1, 1938, affirming the judgment of conviction, 255 App.Div. 67, 5 N.Y.S.2d 570.
Judgments reversed, and a new trial ordered.
RIPPEY, J., dissenting in part. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
Sydney Rosenthal, of Long Island City, for appellant.
Charles P. Sullivan, Dist. Atty., of Long Island City (John H. W. Krogmann, of Long Island City, of counsel), for the People.
The appellant stands convicted of rape in the first degree. It was claimed by the People that the prosecutrix had been criminally defiled on a single occasion by each of a group of men. Whether the appellant was one of the perpetrators was in his case the major issue. The prosecutrix identified him as one of her assailants and swore he had raped her when her powers of resistance had been beaten down in an effort to repulse the others.
(1) This testimony needed the support of other evidence (Penal Law, Consol Laws, c. 40, § 2013), which, we think, was lacking. A codefendant was the only witness relied on to corroborate the charge made by the prosecutrix against the appellant. This witness disappointed the People by asserting his inability to remember the occasion described in the indictment. Thereupon the People-in an attempt at impeachment-were permitted to examine the witness respecting an extra-judicial statement previously made by him. Apparently the courts below thought the witness admitted in his testimony that his prior statement had mentioned the appellant to the District Attorney as a joint principal in the crime. We cannot agree to that interpretation of the record. The witness repeatedly denied that in his prior statement he had so named the appellant and we do not find in his testimony any contrary concession.
No inconsistent prior utterance of the codefendant was admissible unless it had been sworn to or subscribed by him. Bennett v. Crescent Athletic-Hamilton Club, 270 N.Y. 456, 1 N.E.2d 963; Code Crim. Proc. § 8a; Civil Practice Act, § 343-a. The statement as to which he was examined was not offered in evidence nor was its form or content disclosed. Consequently quently there is no occasion to consider whether sufficient support of the prosecutrix would have been supplied by an admissible self-contradictory statement of the witness, a statement the assumed tenor of which would have established his status as an accomplice. See 2 Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., § 1018; Code Crim. Proc. § 399. At all events, there was on this record a failure of support for the testimony which the prosecutrix gave against the appellant.
(2) Over objection by the appellant, the People were allowed to waive any opening of the case to the jury. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Smith
... ... See 457 F.2d at 465-66. The Appellate Division for the Third Department, People v. Graham, 20 A.D.2d 949, 249 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1964), ruled that under People v. Meyer, 11 N.Y.2d 162, 227 N.Y.S.2d 427 (1962), this statement was ... See, e. g., People v. Bearden, 290 N.Y. 478, 49 N.E.2d 785 (1973); People v. Guardino, 286 N.Y. 132, 36 N.E.2d 82 (1941); People v. Romano, 279 N.Y. 392, 18 N.E.2d 634 (1939); People v. Lee, 308 N.Y. 302, 125 N.E.2d 580 (1955) (dictum). Presumably this was to allow the prosecution to ... ...
-
People v. Graham
... ... Our State courts have held that where evidence at the first trial was insufficient, a new trial may be ordered (People v. Lee, 308 N.Y. 302, 125 N.E.2d 580; People v. Bearden, 290 N.Y. 478, 49 N.E.2d 785; People v. Guardino, 286 N.Y. 132, 36 N.E.2d 82; People v. Romano, 279 N.Y. 392, 18 N.E.2d 634) ... While these cases, and others examined, do not deal with the double jeopardy aspect, that issue was considered by the United States Supreme Court in Bryan v. United States, 338 U.S. 552, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335 (1950) and answered in favor of ... ...
-
Dickerson v. NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT, ETC.
... ... The only cases dealing with State legislation designed to prevent the importation of stolen coal, which have been offered, are those of People v. Rueffer, 279 N.Y. 389, 18 N.E.2d 633 and Rueffer v. Department of Agriculture & Markets, 279 N.Y. 16, 17 N.E.2d 407. The only bearing these cases ... ...
-
Walker v. United States
... ... Honor, to put a man on trial for his life four months and four days after the death of the complaining witness, to have gathered a group of people together to take this stand to tell the Court what somebody told them about me and what they believe about me without any facts, however, from Della ... 674, affirmed on opinion below, 1894, 142 N.Y. 629, 37 N.E. 565. See also People v. Croes, 1941, 285 N.Y. 279, 34 N.E.2d 320; People v. Romano, 1939, 279 N.Y. 392, 18 N.E.2d 634; People v. Brehm, 1926, 218 App.Div. 266, 218 N.Y.S. 469. Illinois. People v. Grudecki, 1940, 373 Ill. 536, 27 ... ...