People v. Hill

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Hill

238 N.E.2d 913, 22 N.Y.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1377

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 913 (People v. Hill) 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. Hill, 238 N.E.2d 913, 22 N.Y.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1377 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

The “ show-up ” procedure employed by the police was highly suggestive and improper (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293; People v. Ahmed, 20 N Y 2d 958; People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600; People v. Brown, 20 N Y 2d 238, 243-244). This does not mean, however, that Miss Milligan’s and Mrs. Horrocks ’ testimony identifying the defendants should necessarily be excluded. The case should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing where the People must prove by 11 clear and convincing ” evidence that the witnesses’ in-court identification was not tainted by the improper show-up (United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 240; People v. Ahmed, supra; People v. Ballott, supra). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendants and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgments appealed from should be modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification and, as so modified, affirmed.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Sclleppi, Bergan, Keating and Bbeitel concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm.

Judgments modified in accordance with the memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Memorandum.

The “ show-up ” procedure employed by the police was highly suggestive and improper (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293; People v. Ahmed, 20 N Y 2d 958; People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600; People v. Brown, 20 N Y 2d 238, 243-244). This does not mean, however, that Miss Milligan’s and Mrs. Horrocks ’ testimony identifying the defendants should necessarily be excluded. The case should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing where the People must prove by 11 clear and convincing ” evidence that the witnesses’ in-court identification was not tainted by the improper show-up (United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 240; People v. Ahmed, supra; People v. Ballott, supra). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendants and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgments appealed from should be modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification and, as so modified, affirmed.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Sclleppi, Bergan, Keating and Bbeitel concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm.

Judgments modified in accordance with the memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 913, 22 N.Y.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack