People v. Williams
New York Supreme Court
Á joint indictment for obtaining money by false pretences having been found against the prisoner and one Phettiplace, the district attorney of Chenango, previous to the arraignment of Phettiplace, elected to try Williams separately, and accordingly proceeded to his trial; it not appearing that any objection to such course was made by the prisoner.
Read the full summary
Á joint indictment for obtaining money by false pretences having been found against the prisoner and one Phettiplace, the district attorney of Chenango, previous to the arraignment of Phettiplace, elected to try Williams separately, and accordingly proceeded to his trial; it not appearing that any objection to such course was made by the prisoner. After the prosecutor rested, Phettiplace was called as a witness for the prisoner, who being objected to by the district attorney as incompetent, was excluded by the court. The prisoner having excepted to the decision, the indictment and bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, Ch. J.
The competency of the witness is the only point made in the case.
By the statute, 2 R. S. 735, § 20, when two or more defendants shall be jointly indicted for felony, any one defendant requiring it shall be tried separately; in other cases, defendants jointly indicted shall be tried separately or jointly, in the discretion of the court. Before the statute, this discretion existed in all cases where the right of peremptory challenge was out of question. 7 Cowen, 188. The statute *378secures a right to a defendant indicted upon a charge of pe]ony? (jj¿ not before exist:…
2Cited by8 opinions
- State v. NashSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- State v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- McIntyre v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Shay v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- State v. JonesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.