holding it “quite immaterial” whether another principal had “been acquitted or not” because “at most it would only prove that being tried first, for some reason, [the first-degree principal] escaped conviction at the jury's hands”
Summary of this case from Ferrell v. CommonwealthArgued March 18, 1891
Decided May 5, 1891
E.M. Wilson and Henry M. Aylesworth for appellant.
J.I. Sayles for respondent.
GRAY, J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Order affirmed.
holding it “quite immaterial” whether another principal had “been acquitted or not” because “at most it would only prove that being tried first, for some reason, [the first-degree principal] escaped conviction at the jury's hands”
Summary of this case from Ferrell v. Commonwealthholding that evidence of an “acquittal would not prove this defendant's innocence of the charge in the indictment” because “[a]t most it would only prove that being tried first, for some reason, she escaped conviction at the jury's hands”
Summary of this case from Ferrell v. CommonwealthFull title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v . JOHN KIEF, Respondent
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: May 5, 1891
This is so because the defendant, charged with crime, always has the right to have the jury or the triers of…
People v. FryeThe rule is reasonable, because the evidence can hardly be identical in two cases, other witnesses may be…