People v. Kelly

189 N.E.2d 477, 12 N.Y.2d 248, 238 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1349
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 28, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 189 N.E.2d 477 (People v. Kelly) 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. Kelly, 189 N.E.2d 477, 12 N.Y.2d 248, 238 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1349 (N.Y. 1963).

Opinion

Chief Judge Desmond.

The order should be affirmed. However, some of the statements in the opinion of the intermediate court (former Appellate Part of Special Sessions) prompt us to elaborate somewhat on the jurisdictional and procedural questions there discussed.

The Appellate Part correctly held (see People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368) that the exclusionary doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio (367 U. S. 643) applies to criminal causes tried before the Mapp ruling. The court next stated that the absence of exception to the admissibility of the offending evidence in the trial court is not a bar to a review” and that failure to voice such an [250]*250exception is not a waiver of the law point. Taken at its fullest, the second of those statements is contrary to People v. Coffey (11 N Y 2d 142); People v. O’Neill (11 N Y 2d 148), and People v. Friola (11 N Y 2d 157) which hold that in the Court of Appeals the illegal evidence point is unavailable when it has not been brought to the attention of the trial court. However, an intermediate appellate court may, regardless of objections or exceptions, reverse in the interests of justice or because the trial court judgment was against the weight of evidence. In arriving at its conclusion as to “ interests of justice ” or weight of evidence, the intermediate court is not precluded from taking into consideration the circumstance that illegal evidence was taken.

Since the reversal here was soundly based on grounds within the intermediate appellate court’s competence, we affirm.,

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Bryce
287 A.D.2d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Dickerson
70 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People v. Keller
67 A.D.2d 153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People v. Artis
67 A.D.2d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People v. Bowen
65 A.D.2d 364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
People v. Rivera
66 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
People v. Campbell
59 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Smoot
59 A.D.2d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Joyner
54 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. Hunt
54 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. McGill
47 A.D.2d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
State v. Edge
268 A.2d 35 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
United States ex rel. Mishkin v. Thomas
282 F. Supp. 729 (S.D. New York, 1968)
United States v. Thomas
282 F. Supp. 729 (S.D. New York, 1968)
United States ex rel. Walker v. Follette
274 F. Supp. 180 (S.D. New York, 1967)
Terry v. Denno
254 F. Supp. 909 (S.D. New York, 1966)
United States ex rel. Eidenmuller v. Fay
240 F. Supp. 591 (S.D. New York, 1965)
United States ex rel. Ricco v. LaVallee
225 F. Supp. 278 (N.D. New York, 1964)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Wilson v. Rundle
194 A.2d 143 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 N.E.2d 477, 12 N.Y.2d 248, 238 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kelly-ny-1963.