Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

112 A.D. 225

People v. Biglizen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1906-04-06

Appeal by the defendant, Jacob Biglizen* from a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in and for the city and county of New York, rendered on the 25th day-of October, 1904, convicting the defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree, and also from two orders respectively denying the defendant’s motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.

Decided 1906-04-06

Ingraham, J. (dissenting).:

¶1In view of - the testimony of the. physician called for the prosecution, together with the unsatisfactory character of the testimony of the principal witness-for the prosecution, and the fact that her testimony was uncorroborated, I do not think this judgment should be allowed to stand. - The jury were not instructed that the testimony of the child must'be corroborated before they were justified in con-. victing the defendant, and while there: seems to have been no request for such instruction, in view of the character of this evidence, .taken in connection with the failure of the court to instruct the jury as to the necessity of such corroboration, .justice requires that thére.should be a new trial.

¶2I, therefore, dissent.

¶3Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

/112/ad/225 · .json · Public domain