People v. Burd

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Burd

222 N.E.2d 600, 18 N.Y.2d 832, 275 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1031

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 222 N.E.2d 600 (People v. Burd) 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. Burd, 222 N.E.2d 600, 18 N.Y.2d 832, 275 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1031 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

MemoRandum. The record fully substantiates the finding that the appellant’s confession was voluntary. We said, in our earlier decision in this case (People v. Hocking, 15 N Y 2d 973), that certain facts alluded to in the dissent herein (e.g., the age of the appellant; the appearance of appellant’s father at the station house) were to be considered on the limited issue of vol-untariness. In People v. Taylor (16 N Y 2d 1038) we reiterated that denial of access to the defendant’s family was germane, but in no wise controlling on the question of voluntariness. Nothing in the present case requires, as the dissent seems to suggest, that we abandon our position in Hocking and Taylor and accept, on this appeal from the Huntley hearing, arguments rejected in the main appeal. This case was tried long before June of 1966. The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

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

MemoRandum. The record fully substantiates the finding that the appellant’s confession was voluntary. We said, in our earlier decision in this case (People v. Hocking, 15 N Y 2d 973), that certain facts alluded to in the dissent herein (e.g., the age of the appellant; the appearance of appellant’s father at the station house) were to be considered on the limited issue of vol-untariness. In People v. Taylor (16 N Y 2d 1038) we reiterated that denial of access to the defendant’s family was germane, but in no wise controlling on the question of voluntariness. Nothing in the present case requires, as the dissent seems to suggest, that we abandon our position in Hocking and Taylor and accept, on this appeal from the Huntley hearing, arguments rejected in the main appeal. This case was tried long before June of 1966. The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 N.E.2d 600, 18 N.Y.2d 832, 275 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burd-ny-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack