54 A.D. 360 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
Lead Opinion
The defendant was indicted^ tried and convicted of having received stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. He was sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the county of Mew York for the term of one year. ;
The goods which the .defendant is charged with having received were three metal signs, which had been stolen by three boys, the youngest of whom was under twelve years of age.
It follows that the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in the reversal of this judgment for errors in the court’s charge to the jury. "
The instructions to the jury upon the question of corroboration did not correctly state the law. The court said, among other things, “You will readily understand that they” (the authorities he had mentioned) “ do not require that the evidence outside of the testimony requiring support shall establish the offense itself.” ■ This was excepted to, and the request made to charge that “ the evidence must not only tend' to support, but must support the story of the witness,” This request was refused, and an exception was. taken.
The exceptions were well taken. The charge was in conflict with the rule laid down in People v. Plath (100 N. Y. 590) where it was held that corroborating proof must be given tending to establish the •commission of a crime, and that it was perpetrated by the person accused before a conviction can be lawfully had.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.