People v. Huntley

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Huntley

235 N.E.2d 915, 21 N.Y.2d 829, 288 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1626

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 N.E.2d 915 (People v. Huntley) 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. Huntley, 235 N.E.2d 915, 21 N.Y.2d 829, 288 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1626 (N.Y. 1968).

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 appeal herein there were pre[830]*830sented and necessarily passed upon two questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: (1) Whether the rights of defendant-appellant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated at a hearing to determine the voluntariness of his confession. Appellant argued that the court at the post-trial confession hearing improperly permitted defendant to be questioned with regard to whether he committed the crime with which he was charged; (2) whether his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by remanding his hearing on voluntariness to the same Judge who sat at the trial of his action. The Court, of Appeals considered these contentions and held that there was no denial of defendant-appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 21 N Y 2d 659.]

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 appeal herein there were pre[830]*830sented and necessarily passed upon two questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: (1) Whether the rights of defendant-appellant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated at a hearing to determine the voluntariness of his confession. Appellant argued that the court at the post-trial confession hearing improperly permitted defendant to be questioned with regard to whether he committed the crime with which he was charged; (2) whether his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by remanding his hearing on voluntariness to the same Judge who sat at the trial of his action. The Court, of Appeals considered these contentions and held that there was no denial of defendant-appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 21 N Y 2d 659.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 N.E.2d 915, 21 N.Y.2d 829, 288 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huntley-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack