Court Opinion

ID: 9445250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:23:45.72153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:10.975662
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Appellant petitions for a rehearing. He alleges that we erred in our opinion of July 13, 1956 in that we did not properly treat certain of the contentions he had advanced.
We have re-examined and re-evaluated the record in the light of this petition, and adhere to our opinion that when the New York State Courts denied appellant’s motion for a new trial the denial in each instance was based on an adequate state ground; and that no constitutional issue is reached.
The last paragraph of our opinion of July 13 is amended to read:
Janson testified with his head bandaged and was cross-examined with respect to the cause of his injuries, prior mental stability, etc.; hospital records then available to defense counsel, in his possession and introduced by him at the trial, gave information leading to the identification of all the persons in attendance at and before the time of the victim’s death; and there was considerable dispute at the trial concerning the time at which the alleged dying declaration was made to Forlenza. The evidence alleged to be “newly discovered” and its pertinence was comprehensively presented at the time of the hearing on the motion for a new trial, and the Court of Appeals of New York gave a careful “reassessment” to this evidence so presented, cf. United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 1952, 344 U.S. 561, *913573, 73 S.Ct. 391, 97 L.Ed. 549, and affirmed the denial of a new trial on an adequate state ground.
With the opinion thus amended the petition for rehearing is denied.