Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 E.H. Smith 532

53 N.E 527

People v. . Coombs

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 18, 1899

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1899-04-18

<p>1. Indictment—Fraudulent claim.</p> <p>An indictment, under § 672 of the Penal Code which alleges the presentation of the claim, the facf that it was false and fraudulent, and known to be so by the defendant when he presented it, that various of the items contained in the bill for which the defendant charged were entirely fictitious to the knowledge of the defendant, contains a full statement of all the facts necessary to constitute the offense.</p> <p>3. Fraudulent claim—Proof .</p> <p>In such case, it is, of course, incumbent upon the prosecution to show, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the defendant knowingly presented' or caused to be presented, a false and fraudulent bill for audit to an officer authorized by law to audit and allow the same.</p> <p>3. Coroner—Inquest.</p> <p>In order to constitute an inquest within the meaning of the law, a jury need not be impaneled; a mere inquiry by the coroner himselt, or any one acting under his authority, with reference to the cause of death, constitutes an inquest within the scope and meaning of the statute and the resolution of the board of supervisors prescribing the fees or compensation of coroners. ■</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>A coroner’s inquest means a judicial Investigation into the cause of death by a coroner, with the aid of a jury, and hence the fee for an inquest could not properly he charged unless a jury had been impaneled to determine the cause of death.</p> <p>5. Same—False inquest papers.</p> <p>False and fictitious inquest papers, made up by a coroner’s clerk and retained in the defendant’s public office for the purpose of being filed with the county clerk at some future time, are not private papers of the coroner but public records. Their production under a subpoena to their custodian in the coroner’s office, calling for public documents, is not a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.</p> <p>6. Fraudulent claim—Proof.</p> <p>Where the fraudulent bill described in the indictment was presented to the auditor by the defendant’s clerk, and it could not be shown that he personally presented the bill, it is competent to show that he had received the proceeds.</p> <p>7. Appeal—Harmless error.</p> <p>When technically inadmissible evidence, admitted on a criminal trial, apparently did not affect the case or prejudice the defendant, the error is to he disregarded on appeal.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1990

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

7018991900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BARTLETT, J. (dissenting).

¶1 I think this judgment should be reversed for legal error.

¶2 1. The ledger of the trust company was improperly admitted in evidence.

¶3 2. No legal audit of the bill was shown. The learned district attorney admitted in open court that, in the absence of Maas, he was compelled to prove payment to charge defendant

¶4 3. Papers, alleged to be records of inquisitions held by the defendant, which were drawn nearly a month after the claim is charged to have been presented, and which were never filed in the county clerk’s office, but remained in defendant’s private *24 custody, were taken from his possession by subpoena duces tecum. These declarations were no part of the res gestae. They did not exist until long after the crime charged is alleged to have been consummated. They were incompetent evidence, and obtained in violation pf defendant's rights, as secured by the constitution of the United -States (Amend, art. 4) and the bill of rights of this state (2 Rev. St. [Banks’ 9th Ed.] p. 1650, §H).

¶5 The people, in trying a defendant, undertake, not only to establish his guilt, but to do so under the forms of law.

¶6 All concur with O’BRIEN, J., for affirmance, except BARTLETT, J., who files dissenting memorandum, and MARTIN, - J., who dissents generally.

¶7 Judgment of conviction affirmed.

/12/ehsmith/532 · .json · Public domain