People v. . Taleisnik
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 15, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 15, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The court erred in refusing to charge this request: “ I request your Honor to charge that they cannot consider the testimony of Dr. Huber, or any part of it, as- being corroborating evidence in this case.” (Code Crim. Pro. § 399; Penal Law, §§ 2013, 2177;…
1DissentMcLaughlin, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage. The judgment of conviction has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division and defendant now appeals to this court.
The statute under which the conviction was obtained provides as follows: “A person who, under promise of marriage, * * * seduces and has sexual intercourse with an unmarried female of previous chaste character, is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.” (Penal Law, section 2175.) A conviction, however, cannot be had upon the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. . SweeneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- People v. . PageNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Armstrong v. . PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Boyce v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- People v. . WillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.