Legal Opinion

People v. Bishop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 10, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Two of the witnesses called by the People were Harvin and Spicer. Harvin was a self-confessed accomplice and the court correctly charged the jury that defendant could not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. It was the contention of the People that Spicer was not an accomplice but an accessory after the fact. Defendant insisted that he was an accomplice as a matter of law. These questions the court left to the jury to decide and, under the proof adduced, this course was proper. (People v. Swersky, 216 N. Y. 471, 477; People v. Kate, 209 N. Y. 311, 332.)

The error that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. . KatzNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  2. People v. KressNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. Matter of Roge v. ValentineNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  4. People v. . SwerskyNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  5. People v. LazarNew York Court of Appeals · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. PorteseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
  2. People v. RosenfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  3. People v. HarrellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API