From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crosswell [1st Dept 2001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 23, 2001
(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 23, 2001)

Summary

In Crosswell v. People, 74 Colo. 547, 223 Pac. 51, it was held that the sentence of one eighteen years of age, convicted of highway robbery, to the state penitentiary instead of the reformatory was valid as the meaning of the phrase "crimes involving the penalty of imprisonment for life" does not mean that the particular sentence must be for life but that a sentence for life could have been imposed.

Summary of this case from Maes v. Tinsley

Opinion

August 23, 2001

Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner, Saxe, JJ.


Leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person denied, with leave to renew, as indicated.


Summaries of

People v. Crosswell [1st Dept 2001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 23, 2001
(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 23, 2001)

In Crosswell v. People, 74 Colo. 547, 223 Pac. 51, it was held that the sentence of one eighteen years of age, convicted of highway robbery, to the state penitentiary instead of the reformatory was valid as the meaning of the phrase "crimes involving the penalty of imprisonment for life" does not mean that the particular sentence must be for life but that a sentence for life could have been imposed.

Summary of this case from Maes v. Tinsley
Case details for

People v. Crosswell [1st Dept 2001

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. DORSCHER CROSSWELL A/K/A DORSCHER CROSWELL

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Aug 23, 2001

Citations

(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 23, 2001)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Commonwealth

But merely because a woman is weak-minded does not prevent her from consenting to sexual intercourse. A woman…

State v. Jewett

We adopt the measure of capacity to consent used by the respondent in his motion for a verdict, and hold that…