Legal Opinion
People v. Malkin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 17, 1926No. Appeal No. 2PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
The admission of the testimony as to previous identifications of the defendants Malkin and Franklin was error. (People v. Jung Hing, 212 N. Y. 393; People v. Seppi, 221 id. 62; People v. Ragazinsky, 195 App. Div. 743; People v. Russell, 197 id. 239; People v. Barbuti, 207 id. 285; People v. Conti, 215 id. 270; People v. Domenico, 204 id. 754; People v. Keller, 186 id. 534.) In People v. Ragazinsky (supra) former Justice Blackmar, speaking for this court, said: “ The testimony erroneously admitted would tend strongly to induce in the minds of the jurors an acceptance of complainant’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. . McQuadeNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- People of the State of N.Y. v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- People v. . Jung HingNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- People v. StetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- People v. RagazinskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Oma Roy Eidson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1959
- People v. HagedornyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947