People v. Ditchik
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Oliveri v. Thompson (2d Cir. 1986)
- Oliveri v. Thompson (2d Cir. 1986)
- People v. Trepanier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- People v. Sabo (New York Supreme Court 1998)
- People v. Alessi (Perinton Justice Court 1993)
- People v. Hirniak (New York Supreme Court 1983)
- People v. Witkowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- People v. Leary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- People v. Bracey (N.Y. 1977)
- People v. Hanley (New York County Courts 1977)
- People v. Alexander (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- BRONSZTEJN (Board of Immigration Appeals 1975)
- People v. Payne (N.Y. 1974)
- People v. Streiff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1973)
- People v. Spencer (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1971)
- People v. Manning (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1969)
- People v. Spruill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1964)
- People v. National Radio Distributors Corp. (New York County Courts 1957)
- People v. Mussenden (N.Y. 1955)
- People v. Woodley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Our modification of the judgment of conviction requires the reversal of so much of the judgment as convicts the defendant, under count two of the indictment, of an attempt to commit the crime of bribery. (Penal Law, §§ 2, 378.) “ Acts in furtherance of a criminal project do not reach the stage of an attempt unless they carry the project forward within dangerous proximity to the criminal end to be attained.” (People v. Werblow, 241 N. Y. 55, 61, 62; People v. Collins, 234 N. Y. 355, 359, 360.) In an effort to establish the defendant’s guilt under count two the prosecution introduced testimony by three witnesses, each of whom was thereafter ruled by the trial justice to be an accomplice as a matter of law. We conclude that the testimony of the three witnesses mentioned above, when considered with the remaining evidence of record in the case, is not sufficient in law to warrant the conviction of the defendant under count two of the indictment. (Code Grim. Proc. §§ 395, 399.)
*97 The judgment of the Appellate Division in so far as it affirms the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant of an attempt to commit bribery (count two) should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that count; otherwise the judgment should be affirmed.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur!
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.