People v. Rosenthal

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtVANN
Citation197 N.Y. 394,90 N.E. 991
PartiesPEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL.
Decision Date08 February 1910

197 N.Y. 394
90 N.E. 991

PEOPLE
v.
ROSENTHAL.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 8, 1910.


Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Benjamin Rosenthal was convicted of receiving stolen goods without diligent inquiry, and from a judgment of the Appellate Division affirming the conviction (118 N. Y. Supp. 1132), he appeals. Affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, affirming a judgment, entered upon a plea of guilty, convicting the defendant of the crime of receiving stolen goods without diligent inquiry; also from an order affirming three orders, the first made by the county judge of Monroe county directing a resubmission of the case to a grand jury, the second from an order of the Monroe County Court denying a motion to quash the indictment, and the third from an order of said court denying a motion in arrest of judgment.

On the 26th of March, 1908, the defendant was indicted by a grand jury in attendance at a Trial Term of the Supreme Court sitting in the county of Monroe for the crime of criminally receiving stolen property, in that he, being a junk dealer, purchased stolen copper wire belonging to a telephone company without ascertaining by diligent inquiry that the person or persons selling the same to him had a legal right to do so. The indictment was sent to the Monroe County Court for trial, and on the 7th of May, 1908, while the indictment was still in force, but before any plea had been entered or motion made in relation thereto, upon the application of the district attorney, founded on his own affidavit, the county judge of Monroe county made an order at chambers directing that the charge be resubmitted to the grand jury of that county then in session in connection with a Trial Term of the Supreme Court. On the 23d of May a second indictment was found containing four counts, the first of which was for substantially the same crime described in the indictment found on the 26th of March preceding. After the second indictment had been sent to the County Court, and on the 11th of June, 1908, a motion was made to quash the same upon the ground that the grand jury had no jurisdiction to find it. On the 18th of June said motion was denied, and on the 15th of December the defendant pleaded guilty to the first count of the second indictment; the other three counts being dismissed. When arraigned for sentence, he made a motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the count in the indictment to which he had pleaded guilty, and that the facts stated in that count do not constitute a crime. The motion was denied, and the court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in the Monroe county penitentiary for two months, and, in addition thereto, that he pay a fine of $250, or, in default thereof, that he be committed to said penitentiary for 30 days additional. Thereupon the defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction, from the order denying the motion in arrest of judgment, from the order of the Monroe county judge resubmitting the case to the grand jury, and from the order denying his motion to quash the indictment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment and each of said orders, and the defendant now appeals to this court.

[90 N.E. 992]


[197 N.Y. 396]Percival De Witt Oviatt, for appellant.

Freeman Fithian Zimmerman, for the People.


[197 N.Y. 397]VANN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The indictment in question was found under section 550 of the Penal Code as amended in 1903 by chapter 326 of the Laws of that year. As amended it reads as follows: ‘Sec. 550. Criminally receiving property.-A person, who buys or receives any stolen property, or any property which has been wrongfully appropriated in such a manner as to constitute larceny according to this chapter, knowing the same to have been stolen or so dealt with, or who corruptly, for any money,

[90 N.E. 993]

property, reward, or promise or agreement for the same, conceals, withholds, or aids in concealing or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • DeCanzio v. Kennedy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Abril 1979
    ...353, 356, 183 N.E.2d 651, 653; People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659, 134 N.E.2d 475, 476; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 401, 90 N.E. 991, 994). The opening sentence of section 200.80, "If at any time before entry of a plea . . . or commencement of a trial," is not ......
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 1962
    ...without further court direction. (See People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659, 134 N.E.2d 475, 476; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 401, 90 N.E. 991. 994. 46 L.R.A.N.S., Page 357 Upon the trial, and on this appeal, Rodriguez argued that certain statements of his were im......
  • People v. Leyra
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 27 Abril 1956
    ...district attorney resubmitted the case to another grand jury as he was privileged to do without a court order, see People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 400-401, 90 N.E. 991, 993, 994, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 31 and that body returned a [1 N.Y.2d 203] superseding indictment. Defendant then moved to di......
  • State v. Shapiro, 37.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 27 Junio 1917
    ...it often affords for the disposition of stolen property. Duluth v. Bloom, 55 Minn. 101, 56 N.W. 580, 21 L. R. A. 689; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 90 N.E. 991, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 31; City of Chicago v. Lowenthal, 242 Ill. 404, 90 N.E. 287; City of Grand Rapids v. Braudy, 105 Mich. 67......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • DeCanzio v. Kennedy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Abril 1979
    ...353, 356, 183 N.E.2d 651, 653; People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659, 134 N.E.2d 475, 476; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 401, 90 N.E. 991, 994). The opening sentence of section 200.80, "If at any time before entry of a plea . . . or commencement of a trial," is not ......
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 1962
    ...without further court direction. (See People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659, 134 N.E.2d 475, 476; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 401, 90 N.E. 991. 994. 46 L.R.A.N.S., Page 357 Upon the trial, and on this appeal, Rodriguez argued that certain statements of his were im......
  • People v. Leyra
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 27 Abril 1956
    ...district attorney resubmitted the case to another grand jury as he was privileged to do without a court order, see People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 400-401, 90 N.E. 991, 993, 994, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 31 and that body returned a [1 N.Y.2d 203] superseding indictment. Defendant then moved to di......
  • State v. Shapiro, No. 37.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 27 Junio 1917
    ...for the disposition of stolen property. Duluth v. Bloom, 55 Minn. 101, 56 N. W. 580, 21 L. R. A. 689; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N. Y. 394, 90 N. E. 991, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 31; City of Chicago v. Lowenthal, 242 Ill. 404, 90 N. E. 287; City of Grand Rapids v. Braudy, 105 Mich. 070, 64 N. W. 2......
  • 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