People v. Hines
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Peb Curiam.
The concession of appellant’s counsel that “ unquestionably, the testimony was sufficient prima facie to establish that appellant was a member of the conspiracy to commit the crimes charged, as alleged in the indictment,” renders unnecessary any extended review of the evidence. Indeed, an examination of the record and briefs leads to the conclusion that it would have been futile for counsel otherwise to contend. Questions of law only, therefore, need be considered.
The contention that the operation of policy or the “ numbers game ” may not be prosecuted as a felony under the lottery…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hyde v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- People v. . DwyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Wilkinson v. . GillNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Commonwealth v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Commonwealth v. WeightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. HinesNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- People v. De Cabia, New York County Courts1958
- People v. TeeterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- People v. OrtizAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Hines v. State of Board of ParoleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.