People v. Gray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gray

28 A.D.2d 1079, 285 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1079 (People v. Gray) 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. Gray, 28 A.D.2d 1079, 285 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: To warrant a conviction of violation of subdivision 1 of section 1308 of the Penal Law it must be established that the defendants knew the goods they are charged with receiving were stolen. (See People v. Checkman, 284 App. Div. 44.) The circumstances relied on by the People to establish such guilty knowledge were wholly inadequate to exclude to a moral certainty the hypothesis of innocence. It does appear that certain statements were made by one or more of the defendants to the witness Williams at the police station after their apprehension by the police. The objection of defendants’ counsel to the admissibility of the conversations had with Williams and a cousin in the absence of any police officers was sustained by the court, apparently under the authority of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436). A development of all the circumstances surrounding the conversations may well establish their admissibility on a new trial of the issues. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of receiving stolen property.) Present — Williams, P. J., Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Memorandum: To warrant a conviction of violation of subdivision 1 of section 1308 of the Penal Law it must be established that the defendants knew the goods they are charged with receiving were stolen. (See People v. Checkman, 284 App. Div. 44.) The circumstances relied on by the People to establish such guilty knowledge were wholly inadequate to exclude to a moral certainty the hypothesis of innocence. It does appear that certain statements were made by one or more of the defendants to the witness Williams at the police station after their apprehension by the police. The objection of defendants’ counsel to the admissibility of the conversations had with Williams and a cousin in the absence of any police officers was sustained by the court, apparently under the authority of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436). A development of all the circumstances surrounding the conversations may well establish their admissibility on a new trial of the issues. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of receiving stolen property.) Present — Williams, P. J., Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1079, 285 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gray-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack