People v. Emerson

The defendant was tried and convicted in the Court of General Sessions upon an indictment charging him and one Goss with selling lottery policies, and with keeping a room for the purpose of gambling, and an application is now made to me, under section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a certificate “ that there is reasonable doubt whether the judgment should stand,” and for a stay of the execution of the judgment pending the appeal taken to the General Term of this Court.

The indictment contains five counts, the first and second of which charge the keeping of a room for gambling and the keeping of a room for the sale of lottery policies. The third is for the selling of lottery policies: the fourth, for selling writings in the nature of a bet or wager, upon drawn numbers, of a lottery, and the fifth for the selling of writings in the nature of insurance on the drawing of a lottery. Upon the trial the second and fifth counts were abandoned, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty on the first, third, and fourth counts. Various grounds are assigned by the learned counsel for the defendant as reasons for the granting of the certificate and stay, which I will briefly notice.

It is claimed, in the first place, that the court erred in receiving evidence as to transactions on days other than the day named in the indictment. In the indictment the offense charged was stated to have been committed on the 18th of September, 1888, and evidence was received tending to show transactions extending over a period from the 1st of January of that year to that date. I do not think that in receiving such evidence the court erred. See Code Crim. Proc. § 280; Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464 , and particularly the language of Folger, Ch. J., at pp. 470 and 471; Regina v. Firth, II Cox Crim. Cases, 234; and 1 Bishop on Crim. Proc. (3d ed.) §-397.

It is also- claimed that the testimony of the witness, Addie Kilmarx, as to what she found in the defendant’s place, Bo. 180 Broadway, when she swept up the rooms, ' was improperly admitted. In this view I do not concur.

It is said, in the third place, that the court erred in admitting evidence as to the transactions between the messenger boys and Bedell.

It seems to me that this evidence, taken in connection with the testimony given by the expert witness, Carvalho, was competent to show the illegal nature of the business transacted between Bedell and the defendant.

As to the fourth objection, that the court erred in permitting the witness Bedell to testify that, at different times; his brother asked him where he got the money from, and that he told him that he got it from No. 180 Broadway, the answer of the district attorney seems to me to be sufficient, to wit: that it was proper to show, in answer to the facts elicited on the cross-examination, that Charles Bedell did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that his brother was engaged in the commission- of crime, or of drawing revenues from illegal or criminal sources.

The evidence of Anthony Comstock, as to what is commonly known as a “ lottery policy,” does not seem to have been improperly received. The prisoner was indicted under section 344 of the Penal Code for selling divers papers, “ instruments and writings commonly called ‘ lottery policies.’ ” The statute contains no definition of the term “ lottery policies,” and, the papers themselves not being before the court, it was competent to show by one who had familiarized himself with such documents precisely what is known among those who use them as a “ lottery policy” qr “ policies.” There certainly was nothing before the court which would enable it to take judicial cognizance of the nature or description of a lottery policy. And I agree with the.

It is further claimed that the. witness Bedell was an accomplice with the defendant, and that the court, therefore, erred in refusing to charge the jury that he must be so regarded, and that, unless they found that he was corroborated, being an accomplice in the commission of the offense charged, the defendant should be acquitted.

The authorities cited on the part of the people seem most conclusively to establish that no error was committed in refusing to charge as requested in that respect.

In People v. Noelke, 29 Hun, 461 ; 1 N. Y. Crim, Rep. 252 , it was held that one purchasing a lottery ticket for the purpose of showing that the vender was engaged in a violation of the statute was not an accomplice with the person from whom the ticket was purchased. See also People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137 ; 1 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 495 ; and Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 22 Pick. 476 .

In the case of the People v. Smith, 28 Hun, 626 ; 1 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 72 , the defendant was convicted of a violation of the excise law in selling beer in quantities of less than five gallons without a license, and all the evidence under which she was convicted was given by the person to whom the sale was made. It was objected that, under section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting a conviction upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, the prisoner could not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of the witness. This objection was held to be untenable by the General Term of this Department, it being determined that as the excise law made only the person sell

The learned counsel for the defendant seeks to draw a distinction between the cases just cited and the case at bar,, in that in those cases the- witness who had made the purchase was either an officer of the law or was acting in air official capacity, and engaged in an effort to secure a'conviction of a violator of the law. But the language of Daniels, J., in the case of People v. Smith, disposes of this objection. The learned judge says, “ The purchaser has been subjected to no criminal accountability whatsoever, and by the mere purchase he could not be a participant in the performance of the act which the statute has declared to be an offense. That was performed wholly and exclusively by the defendant, for she, unaided by the purchaser, acted alone in malting the sale. An accomplice is a person involved either directly or indirectly in the commission of the crime. To render him such, he must in some manner aid or assist, or participate in the criminal act, and by that connection he-becomes equally involved in guilt with the other party, by reason of the criminal transaction.”

The learned justice cites in support of his position, Commonwealth v. Hilliard, supra, and Commonwealth v. Downing, 4 Gray, 29 ; Campbell v. Commonwealth, 84 Penn. 187 ; State v. MacKean, 38 Ia. 343 ; Trustees, etc. v. O’Malley, 18 Ill. 407 ; Smith v. State, 37 Ala. N. S. 472; People v. Farrel, 30 Cal. 316 .

Lastly, it is claimed that the jury having found the defendant guilty on all the three counts submitted them,.

In the latter case there were two counts in the indictment, which was under chapter 181 of the Laws of 1872, in relation to abortions and other offenses. By the first section of that act, a party committing the offense was declared to he deemed guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for the term of not léss than four nor more than twenty years. By the third section of the act a party convicted was declared to be punishable by confinement in a county jail or state prison for not less than one nor more than three years. The plaintiff pleaded not guilty to the whole indictment, and the court, charged the jury that .a general verdict of guilty would cover all the counts; but that if they should find the prisoner guilty only under the third count, their verdict should be guilty under the third count. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and the prisoner having been sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for ten years, it was objected, on appeal, that the indictment was fatally defective, because it charged two distinct felonies, one under the first section and one under the third section of the statute. The court, however, held that no error had been committed. Eakl, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: “All the counts are under the same statute and relate to the same transaction. In such a ease it matters not that the offense alleged to have been committed is charged in different ways in several counts for the purpose of meeting the evidence that may be adduced. And it matters not that the offenses alleged in the different counts are of different grades and call for different punishments. People v. Rynders, 12 Wend. 425 ; People v. Baker, 3 Hill, 159 ; People v. Costello, 1 Den. 83 ; Taylor v. People, 12 Hun, 213 Reginas. Trueman, 8 Carr, & P. 727; Whart. Crim. Law, § 416. A count for burglary with an attempt tp commit larceny may be united with -a count for larceny. So burglary and larceny; rape and an

It is quite clear from the observations of the Court of Appeals in these two cases, that the verdict in this case not only is not erroneous, but that it should be sustained. I therefore feel'constrained to hold that none of the points discussed so elaborately in the printed brief of the learned counsel for the prisoner are of such a character as to require nr to justify me in giving the certificate and stay which is sought for. In reaching this conclusion I am well aware of the fact that, upon applications of this character it is not necessary for the justice to whom the application is made-to arrive at the positive conclusion that the court before which the trial was had erred in law, but that it is enough i f he has a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the law. People v. Hendrickson, 1 Park. 396; People v. Lohman, 2 Barb. 450 , and People v. Bragle, 10 Abb. N. C. 300 .

After a full examination of the testimony, rulings, and charges of the learned recorder, I do not feel that such a reasonable donbt exists as to any of the rulings made or propositions of law laid down as to warrant me in staying the execution of the judgment.

The prisoner appears to have had a most impartial and thorough trial. He was ably defendéd ; the law was clearly and fairly stated, and I do not. think that in such a case, even if a remote doubt could be conjured up in regard to-the admission of some unimportant piece of evidence, this court ought to interfere and interpose a stay.

For these reasons, I must decline to grant the stay which is asked for.