People v. Buia

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Buia

309 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 529, 354 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1857

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 309 N.E.2d 869 (People v. Buia) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Buia, 309 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 529, 354 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1857 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We reverse the order of the Appellate Division and deny the motion to suppress, holding that the rule of Chimel v. California (395 U. S. 752) applies in those cases involving the admissibility of evidence seized in searches occurring after June 23,1969, the date of the decision in Chimel. The issue now before us "was not present in People v. Lo Cicero (28 N Y 2d 525) in which both search and trial had been, completed prior to Chimel.

Retroactive application of the Chimél rule in cases still in the appellate process cannot be supported since in our view that rule does not go to the “ very integrity of the fact-finding process ”. (See People v. Bush, 33 N Y 2d 921; People ex rel. Cadogan v. McMann, 24 N Y 2d 233.) To apply Chimel in those cases the trial in which started after the announcement of that decision (irrespective of whether the particular search had been conducted before or after Chimel) would comport more pearly with our concept of the nature of the judicial function. We reach the determination we do, however, in view of the decision in Williams v. United States (401 U. S. 646). We conclude that there is no sufficiently Compelling reason for us to establish for New York State a.time of application different from that recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order reversed and defendant’s motion to suppress evidence denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We reverse the order of the Appellate Division and deny the motion to suppress, holding that the rule of Chimel v. California (395 U. S. 752) applies in those cases involving the admissibility of evidence seized in searches occurring after June 23,1969, the date of the decision in Chimel. The issue now before us "was not present in People v. Lo Cicero (28 N Y 2d 525) in which both search and trial had been, completed prior to Chimel.

Retroactive application of the Chimél rule in cases still in the appellate process cannot be supported since in our view that rule does not go to the “ very integrity of the fact-finding process ”. (See People v. Bush, 33 N Y 2d 921; People ex rel. Cadogan v. McMann, 24 N Y 2d 233.) To apply Chimel in those cases the trial in which started after the announcement of that decision (irrespective of whether the particular search had been conducted before or after Chimel) would comport more pearly with our concept of the nature of the judicial function. We reach the determination we do, however, in view of the decision in Williams v. United States (401 U. S. 646). We conclude that there is no sufficiently Compelling reason for us to establish for New York State a.time of application different from that recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order reversed and defendant’s motion to suppress evidence denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 N.E.2d 869, 34 N.Y.2d 529, 354 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-buia-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack