People v. Lubow case brief summary
272 N.E.2d 331 (N.Y. 1971)
CASE FACTS
Appellants sought review of the appellate court's decision affirming the trial court's conviction of appellants for solicitation. Appellants were charged with a class A misdemeanor because they induced another to commit grand larceny, a felony. Appellants contended that the solicitation statute was unclear.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that appellants' conviction for second-degree solicitation was proper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
272 N.E.2d 331 (N.Y. 1971)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants challenged the judgment of
the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial
Department (New York), which affirmed the trial court's conviction of
appellants for criminal solicitation in the second degree, under N.Y.
Penal Law § 100.05, a class A misdemeanor.CASE FACTS
Appellants sought review of the appellate court's decision affirming the trial court's conviction of appellants for solicitation. Appellants were charged with a class A misdemeanor because they induced another to commit grand larceny, a felony. Appellants contended that the solicitation statute was unclear.
DISCUSSION
- Under the statute, appellants could have been charged with a violation for solicitation for committing a crime, or a class A misdemeanor for solicitation for committing a felony.
- However, a felony was a crime and appellants claimed that the information failed to state under which section of the statute they were charged.
- As a result, appellants claimed that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the offense with which they were charged.
- The court affirmed.
- A prosecution for higher degree was allowed.
- Also, appellants did not request particularization concerning the information and did not object to the part or number of judges participating.
- Furthermore, the information sufficiently charged a misdemeanor, evidence supported appellants' conviction, and the trial court had jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that appellants' conviction for second-degree solicitation was proper.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment