People v. Malloy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Malloy

21 A.D.2d 904, 251 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Malloy) 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. Malloy, 21 A.D.2d 904, 251 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered October 25, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the court properly left to the jury to determine from the conflicting facts whether the defendant’s inculpatory admissions and statements were coercively obtained, notwithstanding his detention on the alleged pretext of confinement under a vagrancy charge to which defendant had pleaded guilty (People v. Everett, 10 N Y 2d 500, 507-508; Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 590-591, 601-604; People v. Leyra, 302 N. Y. 353, 363). On the jury’s implicit finding that these statements and admissions were voluntarily made, apart from the identification proof assailed as improperly bolstered, there was then competent other proof of defendant’s identification sufficient to sustain conviction (People v. Alexander, 13 A D 2d 520, 521). It appears that in United States ex rel. Everett v. Murphy (329 F. 2d 68, cert. den. 377 U. S. 967), the Federal Court of Appeals has taken a view contrary to that of the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Everett, supra). Whenever such conflict is found to exist, the rulings of the New York Court of Appeals are controlling on this court (People ex rel. Aronson v. McNeill, 19 A D 2d 731, 732). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered October 25, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the court properly left to the jury to determine from the conflicting facts whether the defendant’s inculpatory admissions and statements were coercively obtained, notwithstanding his detention on the alleged pretext of confinement under a vagrancy charge to which defendant had pleaded guilty (People v. Everett, 10 N Y 2d 500, 507-508; Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 590-591, 601-604; People v. Leyra, 302 N. Y. 353, 363). On the jury’s implicit finding that these statements and admissions were voluntarily made, apart from the identification proof assailed as improperly bolstered, there was then competent other proof of defendant’s identification sufficient to sustain conviction (People v. Alexander, 13 A D 2d 520, 521). It appears that in United States ex rel. Everett v. Murphy (329 F. 2d 68, cert. den. 377 U. S. 967), the Federal Court of Appeals has taken a view contrary to that of the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Everett, supra). Whenever such conflict is found to exist, the rulings of the New York Court of Appeals are controlling on this court (People ex rel. Aronson v. McNeill, 19 A D 2d 731, 732). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 904, 251 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malloy-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack