*1 V. LEDWOIí ET AL. PEOPLE of Appeals. Court 4,May 1897. LED et al. PEOPLE JOSEPH WON op appeals. law—Court 1. Criminal judgment jurisdiction ap- is not one of Where court peals questions is confined to of law. Same—Duty op 2. court. court, is duty It made the of the deems the evidence where insufficient conviction, jury acquit, warrant a to advise the and the must obey then the advice. 3. Same. words, is presenting defendant not confined form to the court, question right acquitted. of his necessary to he that is All is court, intelligible presented form there should be decision, question ruling its that there is no evidence for the jury, upon or not sufficient evidence which to base a conviction. 4. Same. whatever, the record fails If to show either that there was no evidence not, law,
that the evidence did as matter of come to the standard which requires conviction, quantity quality the law to warrant a the denial error, request legal appeals of such a and the court of power, has the exception, challenged by when such a decision is to do what the trial court should have done. Same—Exceptions. 5. respect exceptions prevail The same strictness with does not in crim- cases, inal as in civil but the will look at the substance rather than at form, promote justice. with a view to acquit 6. Same—Direction A motion discharge form to the defendant or dismiss the indictment regarded request as in acquittal, substance a to direct an or that court instruct prisoner as matter of could not be convicted. jury. 7. Same—Submission long So upon as the burden is of not removing pre- innocence, sumption of establishing guilt beyond accused doubt, a reasonable a mere scintilla or even some is not sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the Same. charge Whenever a "criminal submitted to objection exception defendant, of law is presented. XII—49 Yol.
336 REPORTS, NEW YORK CRIMINAL VOL. oe accused. Evidence—Criminal law—Statement put by The into the case a written statement of the facts cannot accused, favor, measure, wholly being the in his own without in some least, thereby. bound
Appeal husband from him murder of judgment.convicting by the and from her in second wife degree, judgment convicting by of in the third murder degree. for Hill,W.
Henry appellants. L. for the Quackenbush,
James people. The defendants,husband and wife, J. were con O’BRIEN, Buffalo, of the husband in in of murder victed superior in third as the wife murder and degree, degree, the second first in court. when delivered open shown verdict jury by in contained a recommendation for favor The also mercy verdict court then informed there was of the The jury wife. in third and to the as murder degree, explained m of murder and directed various degrees manslaughter, and the re husband, clerk receive verdict their to the wife. The tire and reconsider verdict with respect found a and, court, into verdict retired, guilty again coming first in the with a recom manslaughter degree, the wife of against the hus Sentence was mercy. against mendation for pronounced for and the wife life, band of the state prison imprisonment court in which term the 10 On general years. appeal court; one had, two held the conviction was judges only the judgment. other for reversing, wrote for affirming, under resulted judgment, This affirming disagreement in that court. statute regulating appeals merits of the judgment clear of the order obtain view In a brief record, history any, questions presented 11th of the morning On the case becomes necessary. a native Borowiec, 1890, the dead George body September, house in the water-closet tenement found Poland, was a Buffalo, the neck rope lived, suspended by he immediately The coroner over vault the crosspiece from as to and circumstances the cause instituted inquiry 387 ET AL. PEOPLE LEDWON V. death, he had committed was found that On suicide. 1891, the th of the defendant Led won married the April, Joseph and she now the defendant deceased, widow the Annie Led- further to the matter seems won. to have Nothing regard till after the about four when an indictment years transpired defendants, was found them with the murder charging violence, and as the result of the deceased of their act. joint indictment 1895, In January, trial, with the brought was a result indicated. deceased man well already advanced *3 in with his in who wife and it lived seems that years, apartments, several of whom the boarders, defendant they Led- kept Joseph won was one. had two children, more, the They possibly eldest was a then than whom less eight This boy years age. time of was trial, twelve, and, about we shall boy, present see, he fills an in this It ly record. important place the theory n ofthe that the deceased did not commit prosecution suicide, but defendants, that the who had then become somewhat intimate with him, other, each to murder together thus conspired remove their union; obstacle to future in did, fact, him put violence, death it acting together, aided, would seem, by at least one other that the true cause of the person; death was other violence, form of strangulation with perpetrated a felonious intent, deliberation and the de premeditation by fendants; that, thus killed the having deceased, the defendants, in order to conceal after crime,'hung death in body water-closet, order to make that the appear deceased committed suicide. While the of the precise theory district at is not outlined the evidence clearly in the torney very record as to all who took in the and it is part not supposed tragedy, very other many intelligible important particulars, yet been here stated for all the sufficiently purposes appeal. think that it is clear from a
We entirely perusal record the defendants should not have been convicted upon the evidence, and that the court should not have submitted the case to is, There manifest course, in the incongruity verdict, since, if theory established, prosecution the defen- dants were of murder in the first guilty degree, whatever. There is in nothing case suggest any possible ' .YORK CRIMINAL NEW VOL. REPORTS, there of murder could be conviction
theory upon second much less one first degree. degree, manslaughter The a verdict of murder with which the changed promptness in the in the third into one for first manslaughter degree degree the mind mental such re- suggests process directing rather than sult must have been based conjecture proof. have with to this The we respect grows difficulty and the of the court to out of condition record power one in such cases. The being review judgment judgment our is confined law. We have jurisdiction questions of law can facts, to review ordinarily power questions This is not rule, raised new one by exceptions only. im the defendants were Assuming that has existed always. I do not think that we are affirm convicted, compelled properly echtiical record practice. judgment questions at the trial are shows that lacking precision, proceedings to the trial court, was done to but enough present to this court. and now at the the close of the case for close of again
At people, *4 the for defendants court to case, whole dis the counsel requested that the the indictment, miss the failed grounds (1) to out a have failed show that case; to make they any (2) failed to connect the have defen committed; been (3) The court of offense. dants the commission any replied with a ease, at all such must be that, there was evidence any that he the would motion, of the stated deny disposed jury, s to the To this wa exception ruling and submit a new trial, the counsel for under verdict, After the moved taken. on the Procedure, of Criminal of Code ground section 465 which was evidence, to the law and verdict was contrary a a motion for new denied, and taken. Subsequently, exception evidence, was made and trial, on the newly-discovered ground court, where deems evi is It made duty denied. to, advise the conviction, to warrant a dence insufficient advice. The then .the must obey acquit (section 410), motion, its own the ac this of do undoubtedly court may to an his matter acquittal, to the court right cused may present is not defendant confined to But the under this section. law, ET PEOPLE V. LEDWON AL. or to form words in
this formula to the court any presenting of his to be All right is acquitted. necessary question court, form there shall be that in some intelligible presented decision, for that there is no its question evidence ruling not sufficient which to or evidence base a convic- jury, in this court tion. If record shows either that there was no whatever, not, evidence or that the evidence did as matter of law, law come standard requires quantity a a conviction, denial warrant quality request and this court has the when such error, decision is legal power, to do what the trial court should have challenged by exception, done. same strictness does not respect exceptions in criminal as cases, civil but the court will look prevail at the rather form, substance than with a view promote justice. A motion in form or the defendant discharge dismiss indict- as in ment be substance a regarded to direct an ac- request or court instructed the as matter quittal, not could be convicted. There can be no prisoner doubt that such was substance of the this case made, or request court, that it was understood and treated so and, when a conviction, warrant evidence will denial of such re- of law. is an People Bennett, error 49 E. Y. In quest the denial of such a criminal case request upon ground that evidence, there is some or whenever there is any evidence, may In a law. civil case a present question question law can in this when the be raised of verdict finding has no it, and the to sustain has been evidence raised by excep- I is not in a that, think, tion. But true criminal case. A party cannot murder other grade convicted homicide there is whenever some evidence or merely evidence to sus- *5 ; and the court, tain the the of charge such upon cases, may to decide, as be called matter of law, whether the upon evidence is of a or to such character as warrant a quality conviction. If this rule, not the would in all were the cases be the sole of judge and be no in there would this question, court remedy against convictions based insufficient clearly evidence. upon of Many rules the common-law of evidence criminal governing trials have in enacted of Procedure, been Criminal Code and the most im- NEW CRIMINAL TORE VOL. REPORTS, 389, that one contained section which declares is that- portant to cases the defendant must be be innocent all until presumed and, is in case there is a reasonable doubt proved; contrary he is whether the is entitled to an shown, ac guilt satisfactorily rebutted, is this innocence When legal presumption quittal. a doubt, must, is reasonable shown guilt beyond course, when a least, in some cases be law. question statute has es cases, criminal and a standard tablished must- proof proof there can a that before be to standard lawful conform conviction. it is falls below it clear prescribed standard, Whenever to entitled, is as matter It the accused is- law, acquittal. in most that in and cases where there true is many perhaps quite is or the facts, inferences, a as to proof open opposing conflict whether, is whole, on it of such as character to- the question is for the is obvious statute, that there jury; satisfy the court some cases where will be bound must, in be to- practice, as of law, decide the one and we think question interpose is as the burden such a case. So long this is upon innocence, but of estab not only removing presumption doubt, of the accused reasonable a mere the guilt beyond lishing is not sufficient warrant or even sub proof scintilla 648, 148 N. Owens, of the case Y. People jury. mission E. 71. 43 N. a criminal is charge submitted follows whenever
It objection exception proof, upon law think that in We presented. defendant, held, matter of was of it must fell so far below standard the- character, prescribed by should have been from that the case withdrawn statute, refer way renders necessary general This were the defendants convicted. It which should be ob- outset witnesses who had at the any opportunity served what took about at the to know house of the- place anything at all were Poles, death that lan- night speaking deceased of an the medium jury, through interpre- guage their result, defective form testimony As a singularly ter. in it, There is is in- nothing consistency. however, the innocence of defendants. There was no> consistent *6 PEOPLE V. ET AL. LEDWOtT crimina] on the of the accused in part direct any agency proof is hereafter stated. the death what There excepting producing on that, to show circumstances tending were few night slight of the some witnesses ex- or, noise or loud talking, question, exclamations, were heard and other it, groans apart- press from character of the but, and ; ments of deceased place occurrence, not an this was inmates, habits of the infrequent There was or no and had little significance. absolutely proof when had examined, of the body, people part that was of the marks or indications after hanging death could if detected, science have violence, which was the there of that character was came fact. Whatever from the proof at all, so far as defense, and, any weight indeed, There some is, of the in the people. theory on the furnish motive might defendants to part and is that take life of the that deceased, relations of the defendants were such as not exist should between the wife of the house, deceased and inmate of the or boarding living with the and his deceased wife. There were way other many per- in the either house, sons as boarders or tenants, who had equal crime, to commit if one was committed; but it opportunities motive, that had no they said while defendants had. The is, on this best, There was very slight. point nothing cohabited lewed together, show relations ex- The between them. standard of isted existed propriety among not and their habits life high, these were people peculiar a somewhat low state of indicating exceptional, civilization. in the of such familiar The conduct intercourse people of life is the rules to be judge prevail among higher refinement. The freedom of order intercourse that prevailed them, the drinking, among carousing, singing night, communities, in other would doubtless indicate practiced marital in a neighborhood infidelity, peopled laborers it foreign be due to custom, and largely of what ignorance we might call the refinements life; proprieties there can yet no doubt that evidence, weak and inconclusive as it was, an unfavorable color to the case in gave the minds of the court marriage so soon parties after the death
892 VQL. CRIMINAL NEW YORK REPORTS have and force to given weight may otherwise would suspicions no have secure foundation which to But rest. existence of a of little or motive no in a case where there is importance commission of a crime. proof When circumstances motive commit the point guilt, turn scale accused. Motive alone can never prove guilt, though it circumstantial nroof may strengthen derived from other guilt sources.
It is to consider at unnecessary quite greater what is length called the circumstantial since the case, learned told the judge substance, that was insufficient wholly without the direct in the case, which was given by young of the deceased, son and the defendant boy, Annie. In this he correct, and was remains clearly take at the glance of this which testimony boy, constitutes certainly the most re- markable feature case. He weak, evidently ignorant under brought unfavorable boy, very surroundings, thinking in and speaking foreign tongue, age twelve, as to than tilings more four transpired before. years He was called and on his direct by examination people, swore posi- that he inwas on house tively his night father’s death) his was caused own act in by himself. hanging .which That he inwas fact at home that and had the night, know opportunity he there is whereof no doubt. He was then spoke, asked if upon homicide, trial of another for the which, it person seems, was before, time did had some he not that his father testify was strangled defendants, to death and if he by did not also choked give before the when the grand indictment in testimony like found. He admitted that he did so on testify, both false, it was truth was that his father occasions hung the examination, The district continued and at himself. attorney stated he boy means last, subsequently questions that he saw the defend- threats, understood the witness testified on the to, ants and the other night referred persons father, that what he had before his choking strangling " On this trial was true. cross-examination testified be had said just all defense, withdrew witness impli- that the truth was testified defendants, cating again PEOPLE LEDWON ET AL. V. suicide, and all he had substantially
his father committed untrue. Here the defendants was said implicating It case, and the defense evidence. rested give proceeded *8 which was shown is not contradicted that the deceased by proof he, that, death, addicted to intoxication on the of his ; was night others, in were beer together, large quanti- several drinking suicide, he had threatened to on ; ties that commit and repeatedly to at the occasion, least, one execute threat at railroad attempted At this of the trial the district stage crossing. attorney interrupted and stated to the court that had been defense, he in engaged conversation with the who to boy, spoke English well sufficiently make himself and he now understood, desired to his change and asked to recall him. The testimony, permission was request exception. under defendants’ granted, objection witness line of then, under a questions quite leading did suggestive, his of version change transaction, evidence gave tending sustain On cross-examination, case. people’s however, these statements were and his withdrawn, again original testimony This ended the examination of the again replaced. and the boy, defense with the case. The defendant Annie proceeded was sworn aas and she all witness, denied participation defendants in death, and gave to show that her former proof tending hus- band had committed suicide, and the at proceedings findings the coroner’s were inquest offered and received. The learned told the of judge which was boy, testimony in the case, direct involved contradic- “hopeless was, tions,” as left it certainly to find them whether, whole, what he had teslified to, implicating defendants, or belief not. worthy that, It also should be added the motion for a new trial on the the learned newly-discovered evidence, ground judge the whole case in reviewed elaborate which opinion, it is had said that he hesitation in great submitting testimony to the This condition is of mind boy suggestive rea- sonable truth of doubt as his so far as it story, tended connect the defendants with homicide. The prosecution gave in evidence two each one defendants in papers, signed by of several witnesses, which were statements presence made by them XII—50
Von. CRIMINAL NEW YORK VOL. REPORTS, It at the time of the arrest. officer difficult'to un- police were into these derstand for what put case. purpose papers in the circumstantial statement are clear and of facts They quite the defendants in the show guilty tending agency also clear in that was theory equally support true it is statements of the the result While suicide. form in their favor cannot conclude the own accused peo- must be discredited, when are way they they ple, yet,- least, at facts contain. proof, regarded I am not aware of law would permit any principle into case written statement of the facts put his favor, own without in some accused, being measure, wholly bound Hence crucial least, whether, thereby- as matter legal innocence been presumption *9 be removed established by ever can proof guilt beyond a be a reasonable doubt. Can to of mur- jury permitted convict ? Doesit come to standard der on such prescribed by not. a ? think Guilt in such ease be es- We cannot statute a a reasonable doubt of such tablished beyond testimony by defects, from who is either moral or mental witness, evidently, “ uno, omnibus,” The Falsis falsis in maxim, irresponsible. aas must still be some force legal given principle. Whatever it in modern we times, have been attached qualifications may a To hold that this think this is for case its application. practical based, are, con- upon testimony verdict judgment, “ are re- contradictions,” to be involved hopeless ceded beyond court,- be would a administration of reproach view were, under the The defendants plain provisions justice. the court to have directed acquit. entitled statute, substance, and the refusal the court was made request should be re- it error. The conviction judgment grant a trial versed, new granted. First, that
GRAY, motion dissents J., upon grounds we held indictment, to dismiss the have recently v. such a direction had (People the court authority give and, second, 99, because, N. 149 Y. 43 N. E. 536); Schooley, be indictment that this motion to dismiss the might concede we 395 PEOPLE ET V. LEDWON AL. a an as the of motion to direct ac-
liberally equivalent regarded nevertheless the case fact quittal, presented however that evidence evidence, and, be, unsatisfactory may it cannot be said as matter of law was lacking I elements constitute necessary charged. thing error to refuse to direct an in a case of legal acquittal as was and, Bennett, defective said 49 N. v. Y. proof, People “it is not the 137, the court to take the case from the province consideration of the be of the although may opinion it is not sufficient to Our convict.” in such as this duty other than when the from is one of altogether judgment appealed death. with
All concur O’BRIEN, J.. reversal, GRAY, J., except memorandum reads who dissent.
Judgment reversed. 527, Exceptions Note.—The in criminal 528 of cases. Crim. Code. § § general independent General Term.—The term order a new trial exceptions, against if it is satisfied that the verdict is the evidence or requires justice People or that Petmeeky, new trial. v. N. Y. Cr. A conviction will set a new granted aside and for misdirection judge, probably weight of the trial decision, in their exception though an been taken defendant to such misdirection. People Sweeney, 4 N. Y. Cr. 286. Code, exception Under section 527 of Grim. is not indispensably neces- *10 sary any if the evidence can be seen to be of material detriment to the defen- People Meyers, ; v. 5 Y.N. 124 R. dant. Cr. 7 S. 221. term, duty general section, is the pro- R under this to look into the ceedings upon trial in any occurred, order to discover whether error has found, and, error is proper if such any excep- award new trial whether was, not, People Williams, or was Hun, tion taken in the court v. below. 29 ; 520; Y. Cr. 1 N. 386 17 W. D. 356. if, trial, general sectioi! allows the aspect This term to order a new case, error was committed progress The narrow the trial. respect abrogated'as technical rules exceptions exactitude of were People Druse, People Williams, ; this class cases. v. 5 v. N. Cr. 15 29 Y. Hun, ; McGloin, ; People 525 1 N. Cr. 336 91 N. Y. 249 Y. : 1 Y. v. N. Cr. appellate been'prejudiced by Where can see that the defendant intemperate language attorney, either on prosecuting power, section, argument to the it has following in his under this and People Greenwall, ; ; grant a new trial. 527 N. 115 N. Y. 7 Y. Cr.