People v. Blatt

It is conceded that he was an accomplice in the crime, and, this being so, no conviction could be had upon his testimony, unless he was corroborated by such other evidence as tended to connect the defendants with the commission thereof. Code Cr. Proc. § 399. Without stating in detail the corroborating evidence, we think that, while it was slight, there was sufficient to make out a prima facie case. The defendants went upon the stand and denied all connection with the robbery, or that they had ever been in Sablinsky’s house or Seifter’s factory, or that they had ever had the furs in their possession in Bleecker street or elsewhere, and the elder Blatt denied that he ever went in the company of the principal witness to Detroit. There was some corroborating evidence to the effect that at the time when Sablinsky says that the elder Blatt accompanied him to Detroit the latter was in New York, and that at no time was he away therefrom sufficiently long to permit him to take such a journey.

In view of the sharp conflict of testimony in this case, it was important that the jury should be carefully and accurately instructed with respect to the law applicable thereto. In one very important respect we think that the learned -trial court erred. Eleven witnesses were called by the defendants, who gave testimony as to the good character of each of them. In charging the jury the learned trial court said:

"A word on. this testimony as to good character. If a man is proven guilty Beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not make a particle of difference whether he is a man of good reputation or not. * * * But if in the -course of the trial—in this trial, as in any other trial—the testimony should not be sufficient to satisfy you, or if there should be some doubt or hesitation in your minds, even if it does not rise to the importance of a reasonable doubt, it is for you to say then whether he is a man of good reputation. * * * But suppose, in talking over all the evidence, before you reach a conclusion, there should be some hesitation in your minds, you may consider then the question of good reputation. * * * If he is a man of good reputation, and you are

'hesitating in the consideration of the case, the fact that the man is of gooti. reputation and character leads you to ask at once: Would a man of good •reputation and character do what these men are charged with doing? That is the way such evidence is of importance, and that is the way good char•acter is of importance. Always consider it, if you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a man has committed the crime with which he is ■charged.”

This charge came far short of stating the true rule of law to the benefit of which the defendants were entitled. It is undoubtedly true, .as charged in the first instance, that if a man is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it does not make a particle of difference whether he ■is a man of good reputation or not. But, as has been aptly said, “while good character is not a defense to crime, it may be a defense to a criminal charge.” People v. Weiss, 129 App. Div. 671 , 114 N. Y. Supp. 236 . Good character affords a presumption against the commission of a crime. The influence of this presumption must necessarily vary ac•cording to the circumstances of different cases. It may be slight when the accusation of crime is supported by the direct and positive testimony of credible witnesses. In cases where the evidence is strongly ■contradicted, although preponderating against the defendant, the presumption from good character may be of great weight, and turn the escale, and create that reasonable doubt which will produce an acquittal. People v. Bonier, 179 N. Y. 315 , 72 N. E. 226 , 103 Am. St. Rep. 880 ,

The attending circumstances must determine the degree of force which evidence of good character should have. The evidence for the people may be of such weight that, in the absence of evidence of good ■character, a jury would have no hesitation in convicting; but, with precisely the same evidence for the people before it, the evidence of good character on the part of the accused may'be such that a jury would be fully justified in believing that the other evidence in the case was false or the witnesses mistaken. The determination of what weight evidence •of good character should have must be left to the sound, and not fanciful, judgment of a jury. But in every case where such evidence in ■introduced the accused is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt unless the evidence is so conclusive that the improbability that a person •of such character would be guilty of the offence charged is overcome. Remsen v. People, 43 N. Y. 6 . The jury were told that if there should be some doubt or hesitation in their minds, even if it did not rise to the importance of a reasonable doubt, it was for them to say then whether ■defendants were men of good reputation. If otherwise there was no ■doubt in their minds as to their guilt, no hesitation with regard to it, it was still the duty of the jury to consider the evidence of the good ■character of the accused. That might raise a doubt; it might not; it was for them to say in every instance. Finally, the jury were told:

“Always consider it [good character] if you are not satisfied beyond a. reasonable doubt that a man has committed the crime with which he is charged.”

The case here suggested is the only case in which evidence of good character need not be considered. If the jury are not satisfied beyond .a reasonable doubt that a man has committed a crime with which he is charged, he cannot be convicted, whether his character is good or bad. "The error in the charge is so serious that, in view of the sharp conflict

The judgment of conviction should be reversed, and a new trial granted. All concur.