190 A.D. 339 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1920
In affirming this judgment of conviction there are only two questions which seem to call for discussion. During the trial one of the newspapers in the Bronx, called the Bronx Home News, published an article which reflected upon the defendant,
Another point is strenuously urged, to wit, that the indictment contains two counts, one for grand larceny in the taking of the property from the complaining witness by force, and the other for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The position of the appellant is that these crimes are inconsistent and that he moved to dismiss first one and then the other count, which motions were both denied by the trial court. But while these motions were at one time denied by the trial court, the trial court did, in its charge, withdraw from the consideration of the jury any question upon the count for receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, and left to the jury the determination of the single crime alleged in the other count of the indictment, that of forcibly taking from the possession of the complaining witness the property which it was claimed had been taken. Notwithstanding the denial of the motions made on behalf of the defendant, therefore he received in the charge of the court the full advantage which he sought, and has no reason, therefore, to complain that the motions were formally denied during the progress of the trial.
Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Mereell and Philbin, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.