Majority
Headnote
Appeal—Order op Appellate Division reversing a judgment op conviction AND ORDERING A NEW TRIAL “FOR ERRORS OP LAW ONLY”—SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE REVIEWED IN COURT OP APPEALS—ORDER SHOULD SHOW THAT DECISION WAS UPON WEIGHT OP EVIDENCE.The order of the Appellate Division, reversing the judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial, contained the statement, “ the reversal of said judgment being had for errors of law only.”
It is too thoroughly established to admit of discussion that this court has not jurisdiction to review the order or judgment of reversal and for a new trial in a criminal case unless it appears affirmatively in the body of the order that the court below has exercised its power to review the facts, and that, being satisfied with the judgment in that respect, the reversal was ordered for error of law only. The rule in criminal cases, and in civil cases involving a motion and an order for a new trial, was, prior to the amendment, in 1912, of section 13-38 and the amendment, in 1914, of section 1346 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same (People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560 , 1 N. Y.
The rule still obtains in criminal cases in which a new trial is ordered upon a reversal. The reasons sustaining it are imperative, and, in order that justice to the People and the convicted may be secured, should be given heed by the Appellate Division. The convicted defendant has the right to have the Appellate Division, which is his right. It may be that the eviiacts. The statement in the order that the reversal is for errors of law only does not establish that the Appellate Division has awarded him that right. In case we reversed the order of the Appellate Division the judgment of conviction would stand and the defendant be deprived of the review of the facts by the Appellate Division, which is his right. It may be that the evidence would have justified of compelled a reversal. In case we
The appeal should be dismissed, but without prejudice to a new application to the Appellate Division for the amendment and resettlement of its order by stating in it its decision upon the weight of evidence.
Hisoock, Ch. J., Cuddebaok, Cardozo, Pouetd, Craete and Andrews, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed, etc.
Cases cited
- People v. Redmond 179 App. Div. 127 p. 270
- People v. O'Brien 164 N. Y. 57 p. 270, p. 271, p. 272
- People v. Calabur 178 N. Y. 463 p. 270, p. 271
- People v. Damron 212 N. Y. 256 p. 271
- Mandeville v. Reynolds 68 N. Y. 528 p. 271
- Hess v. Smith 16 Misc. Rep. 55 p. 271
- Williams v. Montgomery 60 N. Y. 648 p. 271
- People v. Gallagher 75 App. Div. 39 p. 271
- People v. Boas 92 N. Y. 560 p. 271
- People v. Stevens 104 N. Y. 667 p. 271, p. 272, p. 273
- People v. Hovey 92 N. Y. 554 p. 271, p. 272
- People v. Grout 166 App. Div. 220 p. 271
- People v. Weiner 31 N. Y. Crim. 378 p. 272
- People v. Conroy 97 N. Y. 62 at 72, 2 p. 272, p. 273
- Harris v. Burdett 73 N. Y. 136 p. 272, p. 273
- Mickee v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. 144 N. Y. 613 p. 272, p. 273
- Wright v. Smith 209 N. Y. 249 p. 272
- Caldwell v. City of New York 210 N. Y. 576 p. 272
- People v. Hovey 1 N. Y. Crim. 283 p. 272
- People v. Bissert 71 App. Div. 118 p. 272
- People v. Bissert 172 N. Y. 643 p. 272
- People ex rel. Jerome v. Court of General Sessions 112 App. Div. 424 p. 272
- People ex rel Jerome v. Court of Gen. Sessions 20 N. Y. Crim. 52 p. 272
- People ex rel. Jerome v. Court of General Sessions of the Peace 185 N. Y. 504 p. 272