Case Name: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS CONNOR, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-07
Citations: 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS CONNOR, Appellant.
Judges: Yan Brunt, P. J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 60
Pages: 352–358

Head Matter:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS CONNOR, Appellant.
Indictment — when an allegation, not required by the Oode, and the admission of proof of the fact alleged, does not injure the defendant— Oode of Criminal Procedure, sec. 542.
One Connor, was convicted under a count contained in an indictment, which alleged the commission of an assault feloniously, willfully and wrongfully made by him by a pistol then and there loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, which was in the right hand of the said Connor, and was pointed at the complaining witness with intent to shoot off and discharge the same. The weapon was also alleged to be an instrument likely to produce grievous bodily harm.
The existence of the intent charged in the indictment, to shoot off and discharge the weapon, was not required by subdivision 4 of section 218 of the Penal Code, defining an assault, but evidence was given on the trial from which an intent to shoot off and discharge the weapon could be inferred. It was claimed by the defendant that he was entitled to a reversal of the judgment because of this additional allegation and the admission of the evidence given in support thereof.
Held, that, though the prosecution did more than it was obliged to do to secure the conviction of the defendant, he was not injured by such action, and was not entitled to complain of it under the provisions contained in section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Brady, J., dissenting.)
Mulligan v. People (5 Park. Crim. B., 105) distinguished.
Appeal from a judgment, entered after a trial on February 4, 1889, at tbe Coxu-t of General Sessions of tbe County of New York, convicting the defendant of an assault in tbe second degree.
Alfred & Charles Steckler, for tbe appellant.
William Travers Jerome, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.:
Tbe defendant was convicted under tbe second count contained in tbe indictment, tbe first having been withdrawn from tbe consideration of tbe jury. This count alleged an assault feloniously, willfully and wrongfully made by him by a pistol then and there loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, which was in tbe right band of tbe defendant and pointed and presented at tbe complaining witness, with intent to shoot off and discharge tbe same. Tbe weapon was alleged also to be an instrument likely to produce grievous bodily barm. This count in tbe indictment appears to have been framed under subdivision 4 of section 218 of tbe Penal Code, declaring a person to be guilty of an assault in tbe second degree who willfully and wrongfully assaults " another by tbe use of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce grievous bodily barm." Tbe intent charged in tbe indictment against the prisoner, to shoot off and discharge tbe weapon, has not been required to create tbe offense described in this subdivision of tbe section. But evidence was given on tbe trial, from which such an intent could be inferred, for tbe complaining witnesses testified that when tbe defendant pointed tbe pistol, which was proven to have been loaded, at him, be stated that be would shoot tbe witness, who then jumped behind a partition in the back-room. From this statement an intent to shoot could- be inferred under the decision which was made in Mulligan v. People (5 Parker, 105). On tbe charge which was given to the jury, their verdict of guilty of the offense, in this manner alleged, was made to depend upon the existence of this intent, as well as upon the additional fact that the weapon was an instrument likely to produce, as it was pointed, grievous bodily harm. No injury accordingly resulted to the defendant by the allegation and proof of this additional attribute, to those required to convict him of the crime for which he was found guilty. It, on the contrary, imposed an additional burden upon the prosecution, beyond that required by the statute. And if, in the judgment of the jury, the evidence had failed to establish the existence of this intent, then the defendant would, from the charge of the court, have been acquitted. They considered the intent to have been proved. And as the evidence left no doubt concerning the other circumstances necessary to constitute the crime, they found the defendant guilty, and that they very well could do, for this crime of an assault in the second degree, although the indictment charged, and the proof tended to establish more than the law required to make out the offense.
It is supposed that the case of Mulligan v. People (supra), supports the right of the defendant to a reversal of this judgment, because of this additional allegation and proof. But such is not its effect. The indictment in that case was found under a statute makit a felony to shoot at another, or attempt to discharge any kind of fire-arms or any air-gun at another with the intent to kill, maim, etc., such other person. (3 R. S. [6th ed.], 938, § 46.) The weapon in that case was an uncocked pistol, and the court was asked to charge that pointing this weapon at the person was not an attempt to commit the crime mentioned in this section of the statute. The intent there was essential to the commission of the crime described in the statute. It could not be committed without the existence of the intention. And as that was not proved, by reason of the circumstances that the pistol was uncocked, the court held that the jury should have been so directed. But m this case the intent was not made by the law an attribute of the crime. But still it was alleged to exist, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury in finding that the intent did, in fact, exist. For it did not appear that the pistol was uncocked, but it was pointed by the defendant, at the complaining witness, accompanied with the threat that he would shoot him then. And from this circumstance, accompanied with the threat, the jury cofdd infer that the pistol was in a condition at the time to be discharged. In Regina v. Lewis (9 Car. & Payne, 523), the indictment was found under a statute -making it an offense to attempt to discharge a fire-arm at another. The evidence proved that the defendant, at the termination of an interview between himself and the complainant, unfolded a coat on his arm and took out a blunderbuss, saying then "you are a dead man." This was not pointed at the witness, and not up to the defendant's shoulder, when he was seized by his two arms and his collar and thrown down upon a sofa and then secured. The witness added: " The blunderbuss was never pointed towards me." And that materially distinguishes that case from the present one. The court held at the trial that this was not sufficient to bring the case within the statute and the defendant was acquitted. In Regina v. St. George (Id., 483), the defendant presented a loaded pistol at the complaining witness, but was prevented from pulling the trigger. And it was held at the trial that he could not be convicted on an indictment for felonously 'attempting to discharge loaded arms at the witness. As to the case first cited from this report there seems to have been fair ground for the acquittal of the defendant. But as to the case last referred to, it certainly does not seem to have been well decided. For pointing a loaded pistol at a person, which he was prevented from discharging by the intervention of another, would be an attempt to discharge it at the person towards whom it was pointed. And that was considered to be the rational conclusion in Queen v. Brown (L. R., 10 Queen's B. Div., 381), where the correctness of the decision in Regina v. St. George, and also the case of Lewis, was so far doubted and criticised as substantially to deprive the earlier case at least of its authority. But even if they were not, in effect, overruled at that time, the decisions contained nothing whatever which would exonerate this defendant from guilt under this subdivision of the statute. For he did all that the subdivision has prescribed to create the offense, and he did it also with the intention alleged in the indictment, forming no necessary part of the crime. The prosecution did more than it was legally obliged to do to secure the conviction of the defendant. He was not injured, but was benefited by this excess. And he is not entitled to complain of it under the enact ment contained in section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment should be affirmed.
Yan Brunt, P. J., concurred.