TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. O'Brien

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James J. O’Brien, Respondent

People v. O'Brien, 58 N.E. 117 (N.Y. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 2, 1900
Judges
O'Brien
Citations
58 N.E. 117164 N.Y. 572 Bedell 571900 N.Y. LEXIS 858
Headnotes
Appeal — Non-reviewable Order of Reversal in Criminal Case. An order of reversal in a criminal case, that does not, upon its face, exclude the possibility that it was based upon an examination of the facts or made as matter of discretion, presents no question of law reviewable by the Court of Appeals. People v. O’Brien, 48 App. Div. 66, appeal dismissed.
Summary
Appeal from an order of tlie Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made February 9, 1900, reversing a judgment of the Court of General Sessions convicting the defendant of the crime of assault in the third degree. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. There is nothing before this court to review. "Where a judgment of conviction is reversed on the facts by the Appellate Division, its decision is not reviewable by this court. (People v. Mitchell, 142 N. Y. 639; People v. Stevens, 104 N. Y. 667.) When the order of the Appellate Division does not state upon what ground the judgment of conviction was reversed, it is assumed that the judgment was reversed upon the facts, and the order is not reviewable before this court. (People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560; People v. Conroy, 97 N. Y. 62.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — O'Brien

O’Brien, J.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of assault in the third degree, and on a trial was convicted by the jury and sentenced to pay a fine of $50. On appeal to the Appellate Division the judgment was reversed. The order of reversal simply states that it was “ ordered and adjudged *58 that the said judgment so appealed from, as aforesaid, be and the same hereby is reversed.”

The order does not state upon what ground or for what reason the judgment was reversed. The defendant was entitled to have the facts examined upon the appeal, and we cannot say that the reversal did not proceed upon that ground. If the court below reversed upon some view of the facts, as it might, this court has no power to review the decision since our jurisdiction is expressly limited to questions of law. We have no power to review a judgment of reversal in a criminal case unless it appears affirmatively in the body of the order that the court below has exercised its power and discretion to review the facts, and that, being satisfied with the judgment in that respect, the reversal was ordered for error of law only. Inasmuch as the order in this case does not, upon its face, exclude the possibility that it was based upon an examination of the facts, or made as matter of discretion, no question of law is presented by the appeal.

(Harris v. Burdett, 73 N. Y. 136 ;

People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560 ;

People v. Conroy, 97 N. Y. 62 ;

People v. Stevens, 104 N. Y. 667 ;

People v. Mitchell, 142 N. Y. 639 .)

The appeal should, therefore, Joe dismissed.

Parker, Oh. J., Bartlett, Vann, Landon, Cullen and Werner, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11914: 11919: 11939: 11956: 11976: 11978: 12021: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Mackell351 N.E.2d 684 (N.Y. 1976) · Dissent
  2. People v. Bellows22 N.E.2d 238 (N.Y. 1939)
  3. People v. Redmond121 N.E. 785 (N.Y. 1919)
  4. People v. Calabur71 N.E. 2 (N.Y. 1904)
  5. People v. Thomas376 N.E.2d 1329 (N.Y. 1978)
  6. People v. Weiner105 N.E. 658 (N.Y. 1914)

Most recent

  1. The People v. Daria N. EpakchiNo. 19 (N.Y. Apr. 1, 2021)
  2. People v. Thomas376 N.E.2d 1329 (N.Y. 1978)
  3. People v. Mackell351 N.E.2d 684 (N.Y. 1976) · Dissent
  4. People v. Caverio133 N.E.2d 512 (N.Y. 1956) · Dissent
  5. People v. Bellows22 N.E.2d 238 (N.Y. 1939)
  6. People v. Redmond121 N.E. 785 (N.Y. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Conroy, 97 N.Y. 62 (1884) 87
Harris v. Burdett, 73 N.Y. 136 (1878) 25
People v. Boas, 92 N.Y. 560 (1883) 15
People v. Stevens, 10 N.E. 527 (N.Y. 1887) 4
People v. Mitchell, 37 N.E. 567 (N.Y. 1894) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list