People ex rel. Venosa v. Murphy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentKimball, J.
I am unable to agree with the majority of the court that the order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus should be affirmed. Ordinarily, habeas corpus is not a remedy for testing the sufficiency of an indictment, in the absence of “ exceptional circumstance[s] ” (People ex rel. Sedlak v. Foster, 299 N. Y. 291, 293-294) or “ unless there be a total lack of jurisdiction to hold or to bring the defendant to trial thereon.” (People ex rel. Childs v. Knott, 187 App. Div. 604, 622, affd. 228 N. Y. 608.) Under the circumstances presented here, by the record on appeal and the statement of facts…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. . RosenthalNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- People Ex Rel. Sedlak v. FosterNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- People v. BissertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- People ex rel. Childs v. KnottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- People Ex Rel. Childs v. . KnottNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.