In re Richard S.
This text of 264 N.E.2d 353 (In re Richard S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in the following memorandum; Chief Judge Fuld concurs in result.
Memorandum. Upon remand from the Supreme Court of the United States (397 U. S. 597) the motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal should be granted and, upon reargument, the motion for leave to appeal should be granted.
We hold that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required for an adjudication that a minor is a person in need of supervision (see In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358). Inasmuch as proof in the instant case was merely by a preponderance of the evidence, the motion for summary reversal on consent should be granted, the order reversed and the proceeding dismissed. In so doing we adhere to our decision in Matter of D. (Daniel) (27 N Y 2d 90) that Winship will not be applied retroactively.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
264 N.E.2d 353, 27 N.Y.2d 802, 315 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-s-ny-1970.