Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel T. Donovan, Appellant, 1886 — 101 N.Y. 632 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel T. Donovan, Appellant
101 N.Y. 632·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel T. Donovan, Appellant.
The provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (§ 527, as amended by chapter 360, Laws of 1882), authorizing the appellate court to order a new trial in a criminal action, although no exceptions were taken on trial, applies only to the Supreme Court; this court has no authority to review the judgment unless exceptions have been duly and properly taken.
(Argued December 16, 1885;
decided January 19, 1886.)
The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree.
The points presented upon the appeal appear in the following extract from the opinion:
“ Upon, the argument of this appeal, no exception to any ruling of the trial court was pointed out by the appellant’s counsel as a ground for a reversal of the conviction of the defendant, and after a careful examination of the case and exceptions, we are satisfied that none was taken which authorize a reversal.
“ The appellant urges that upon a consideration of the whole case, if the court should be of the opinion that injustice had been done to the defendant, it is authorized by section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a new trial.
“We have frequently decided that the powers conferred by that section were intended to be exercised by the Supreme Court alone, and that we have no authority to review a judgment in a criminal action, unless exceptions have been regularly and properly taken to the rulings of the trial court.”
Charles H. Meed for appellant.
DeLancey Nicoll for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Ruger, Ch. J.,]
Ruger, Ch. J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.