People v. Bush

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Bush

309 N.E.2d 872, 34 N.Y.2d 537, 354 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1862

DecidedFebruary 20, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 309 N.E.2d 872 (People v. Bush) 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. Bush, 309 N.E.2d 872, 34 N.Y.2d 537, 354 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1862 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to aménd remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: On the appeal herein there were pre[538]*538sented and necessarily passed upon the following questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz: (1) Does the refusal of the court retroactively to apply the Wardius rule, of unconstitutionality of the New York State no tice-of-alibi statute (Code Crim. Pro., § 295-1) to appellant’s trial, which commenced and was concluded prior tó June 11, 1973, the date of Wardius {ibid.), violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? and (2) Did the court’s selection of the jury, under the procedure mandated by the Judicial Conference of the State of New York, deprive appellant of a fair trial, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United ^tates? (See 33 N Y 2d 921.]

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

Motion to aménd remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: On the appeal herein there were pre[538]*538sented and necessarily passed upon the following questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz: (1) Does the refusal of the court retroactively to apply the Wardius rule, of unconstitutionality of the New York State no tice-of-alibi statute (Code Crim. Pro., § 295-1) to appellant’s trial, which commenced and was concluded prior tó June 11, 1973, the date of Wardius {ibid.), violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? and (2) Did the court’s selection of the jury, under the procedure mandated by the Judicial Conference of the State of New York, deprive appellant of a fair trial, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United ^tates? (See 33 N Y 2d 921.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 N.E.2d 872, 34 N.Y.2d 537, 354 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bush-ny-1974.