From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Herrmann

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 19, 1961
9 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1961)

Summary

In People v. Herrmann (9 N.Y.2d 665), we reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial upon the authority of the dissenting memorandum in the Appellate Division, wherein one of the errors mentioned was the definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt for which there is a substantial reason.

Summary of this case from People v. Jones

Opinion

Argued November 30, 1960

Decided January 19, 1961

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, MILLER B. MORAN, J.

Nancy Carley and John F.X. Sheridan for appellant.

Frank D. O'Connor, District Attorney ( Morton Greenspan and Howard D. Stave of counsel), for respondent.


Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered upon the authority of the dissenting memorandum in the Appellate Division. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER.


Summaries of

People v. Herrmann

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 19, 1961
9 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1961)

In People v. Herrmann (9 N.Y.2d 665), we reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial upon the authority of the dissenting memorandum in the Appellate Division, wherein one of the errors mentioned was the definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt for which there is a substantial reason.

Summary of this case from People v. Jones
Case details for

People v. Herrmann

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE HERRMANN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 19, 1961

Citations

9 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1961)
212 N.Y.S.2d 77
173 N.E.2d 52

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

On the complainant's cross-examination it was established that shortly after the robbery he had stated at a…

People v. Malloy

He testified that the victim had viewed a line-up and had picked the defendant out of the line-up and stated…