People v. Calo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Calo

31 A.D.2d 550, 295 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 25, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 550 (People v. Calo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Calo, 31 A.D.2d 550, 295 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated April 3, 1968, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. On the appeal from the judgment of conviction .in this ease, and after the hearing which we ordered, during the pendency of that appeal, on the voluntariness. of the confession (People v. Calo, 23 A D 2d 890), we did consider the merits of the claim of suppression of evidence. This claim was based on the nonproduction of a statement in Spanish, given by defendant. Defense counsel never asked for the statement at the trial or made any motion with respect to it. More importantly, the minutes of the hearing demonstrated that the Spanish statement was identical to the incriminating statement given in English. The statement became mislaid after the trial and could not be found. We decided that on the merits there was no suppression of evidence and that the production of the statement in Spanish would not have affected the outcome of the trial. Though this was not specifically elucidated in our decision it was encompassed in our statement that we considered defendant’s other. contentions and found them to be without merit. Defendant raised this specific issue on that appeal in point six of his ■brief. No useful purpose could be served by the granting of a hearing in this matter. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated April 3, 1968, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. On the appeal from the judgment of conviction .in this ease, and after the hearing which we ordered, during the pendency of that appeal, on the voluntariness. of the confession (People v. Calo, 23 A D 2d 890), we did consider the merits of the claim of suppression of evidence. This claim was based on the nonproduction of a statement in Spanish, given by defendant. Defense counsel never asked for the statement at the trial or made any motion with respect to it. More importantly, the minutes of the hearing demonstrated that the Spanish statement was identical to the incriminating statement given in English. The statement became mislaid after the trial and could not be found. We decided that on the merits there was no suppression of evidence and that the production of the statement in Spanish would not have affected the outcome of the trial. Though this was not specifically elucidated in our decision it was encompassed in our statement that we considered defendant’s other. contentions and found them to be without merit. Defendant raised this specific issue on that appeal in point six of his ■brief. No useful purpose could be served by the granting of a hearing in this matter. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 550, 295 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-calo-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack