Case Name: PEOPLE v. HOVEY
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-10
Citations: 1 N.Y. Crim. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. HOVEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 477–484

Head Matter:
Court of Appeals.
October, 1883.
PEOPLE v. HOVEY.
(Affirming 1 N. 7. Grim. Rep. 324.)
Hewly Discovered Evidence—When not Ground for Hew Trial.—Appeal from Order denying Motion for Hew Trial.
After a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree, a motion was made for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which evidence was in substance set forth in the affidavit of a physician, stating that he had seen the prisoner the day after the homicide; that at that time the prisoner was oblivious of what had occurred for a week before; and that he had ascertained that the • prisoner was accustomed to the use. of opiates. Held, that this evidence is only material as it bears upon the criminal responsibility of the prisoner; that its bearing upon that point is to be deemed remote; and that such want of consciousness of the prisoner on the morning after the homicide may be consistent with the possession of his faculties at the time of its commission.
Further held, upon consideration of the evidence, etc., that the General Term was correct in holding that this was not a case for the intervention of the court in granting a new trial.
Sapallo, Miller, and Fincii, JJ., dissented.
Whether an appeal lies to this court from an order denying a motion for a new trial in a criminal case made after conviction and judgment, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, quaere.
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, affirming an order made by Hon.
Charles Donohue, and entered July 19, 1883, denying a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered, evidence.
Defendant was tried and convicted of homicide in the Court of General Sessions of Hew York County; an appeal was taken to the General Term and the judgment affirmed {ante, p. 180), after which an appeal was taken to this court, and the judgment finally affirmed {ante, p. 282). An application was made for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, and this motion was denied, whereupon an appeal was taken to the General Term and the order denying the motion was there affirmed {ante, p. 324), and this appeal from such order of affirmance was then taken to this court.
The facts appear in the opinions.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In view of the grave interest involved in this case, we have examined the facts presented in the papers on which the application for a new trial was made, without considering or passing upon the question whether an appeal lies to this court, from an order denying a motion for a new trial, in a criminal case, made after conviction and judgment, on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The newly discovered evidence is in substance, set forth in the affidavit of the physician who saw the prisoner on the day following the homicide at the prison. The physician, in substance, states at that time the prisoner was oblivious of what had occurred for a week before. ,He further states that he ascertained that the prisoner was accustomed' to the use of opiates and sedatives of various kinds. This evidence is only material as it bears upon the criminal responsibility of the prisoner at the time of the homicide; but it is apparent that its bearing upon the point, to say the most, is quite remote. The want of consciousness of the prisoner, on the morning after the homicide, of his acts for a week before, may be quite consistent with the possession of his faculties at the time. It does not appear that he was not, when the examination was made, under the immediate influence of drugs, taken after the homicide ; that his condition observed by the physician was not attributable to that cause.
The facts found on the trial tend to show that the homicide was the willful, conscious, and deliberate act of the prisoner. The prisoner was sworn on the trial, and while professing to recollect the whole occurrence, attributed the homicide to acci dent. It is not proposed to show, by any acquaintance of the prisoner, that before, the homicide he was not in possession of his reason and accountable for his acts. It may be inferred that he was accustomed, to some extent, to the use of intoxicating drink, but nothing was proved on that trial from which a just inference could be drawn at that the time of the homicide liis power of will or deliberation was affected or weakened by this cause.
It is doubtless true that no adequate motive for the homicide was shown, but this is by no means an unusual fact in criminal cases.
The General Term has carefully considered the case, and we are constrained to concur in the conclusion reached, that a case is not made for the intervention of the court in granting a new trial.
The order affirming the order denying the motion is affirmed.