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, Appellant, v. Henry K. Stevens, Respondent, 1887 — 104 N.Y. 667 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Henry K. Stevens, Respondent
104 N.Y. 667·New York Court of Appeals·1887·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, Appellant, v. Henry K. Stevens, Respondent.
(Submitted January 20, 1887;
decided February 1, 1887.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term, entered upon a verdict reversing a judgment convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny.
The following is the mem. of opinion :
“ The order of reversal states merely that it was made on questions of law. It does not state that the court has considered the questions of fact or exercised the discretion which the statute confers upon it. We have decided that this court will not review an order of reversal in such a case, unless it shows that the court has exercised its ■ discretionary powers. (See People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560-564; Same v. Conroy, 97 id. 62, 72; Harris v. Burdett, 73 id. 136.) Although the court in the present case puts its decision upon a question of law, we cannot say it would not have reached the same result had it exercised its discretion and entertained a different opinion on the question of 'law. The prisoner was entitled to a review of the facts and the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, which he might lose if the case should be disposed of solely on a question of law.
“ The case should, therefore, be remitted to the General Term ,to consider the questions of fact and exercise its discretion.”
George T. Quinby for appellant
John Laughlin for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.]
Per Curiam mem.
as given above.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.