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. William O'Connor, Appellant, 1903 — 175 N.Y. 477 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William O'Connor, Appellant
175 N.Y. 477·New York Court of Appeals·1903·NY
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. William O’Connor, Appellant.
(Argued May 6, 1903;
decided May 19, 1903.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered at a Trial Term for the county of Schoharie January 24,1902, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree.
S. L. Mayham and C. B. Mayham for appellant.
E. A. Dox, District Attorney (George M. Palmer of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The facts of this case do not differ from those of People v. Sullivan (173 N. Y. 122), except in the features of identification of this defendant and of an attempt to establish an alibi. There was such proof as to these defenses, in the testimony of the witnesses and in the circumstances disclosed, that the determination of the jury is conclusive upon us. This defendant and Sullivan were proved to the satisfaction of the jury to have been jointly engaged in the same criminal scheme, which resulted in the killing of Wilson, the night watchman of Cobleskill. The verdict in that respect rests upon sufficient evidence, and no legal question is raised which was not settled by the decision in Sullivan's case.
The judgment of conviction must, therefore, be affirmed upon the authority of that case.
Parker, Oh. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin and Vann, JJ., concur.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.