Court Opinion

ID: 3631234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:10:42.598271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:38.163053
License: Public Domain

I dissent, for the reason that a reversal of the judgment of conviction upon the errors alleged is not justified. They were neither serious, nor prejudicial. The course of the district attorney, in asking the unnecessary questions alluded to in the opinion, may well have been open to censure; but that the evidence could prejudice the defendant's case is incredible. As to three of the four cases where these questions were asked, they contained no suggestion of false representations by the defendant in obtaining the money for his chemical productions. As to the other case, where they did enter into the question, the defendant denied the offense.
The verdict of the jury was abundantly sustained by the proofs and the Appellate Division justices have unanimously affirmed the judgment, upon their review of the trial. I think it is going too far for this court to hold that it should be now reversed for the reasons assigned.
CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT and CHASE, JJ., concur with HISCOCK, J.; GRAY, J., reads dissenting opinion.
Judgment of conviction reversed, etc. *Page 273