People v. Horton

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Horton

224 N.E.2d 884, 19 N.Y.2d 600, 278 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1822

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 N.E.2d 884 (People v. Horton) 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. Horton, 224 N.E.2d 884, 19 N.Y.2d 600, 278 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1822 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeals herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of defendants-appellants under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Defendants argued that the Trial Judge failed to instruct the jury properly on the issue of the voluntariness of their confessions, and that upon the subsequent Huntley hearing the court failed to apply the proper constitutional standards in determining the voluntariness of their confessions. The Court of Appeals considered these contentions, and held that, since no error had been committed in either instance, there was no denial of defendants-appellants ’ constitutional rights. [See 18 N Y 2d 355.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeals herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of defendants-appellants under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Defendants argued that the Trial Judge failed to instruct the jury properly on the issue of the voluntariness of their confessions, and that upon the subsequent Huntley hearing the court failed to apply the proper constitutional standards in determining the voluntariness of their confessions. The Court of Appeals considered these contentions, and held that, since no error had been committed in either instance, there was no denial of defendants-appellants ’ constitutional rights. [See 18 N Y 2d 355.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 N.E.2d 884, 19 N.Y.2d 600, 278 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-horton-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack