People v. Mishkin

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Mishkin

229 N.E.2d 454, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1305

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 229 N.E.2d 454 (People v. Mishkin) 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. Mishkin, 229 N.E.2d 454, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1305 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

Order affirmed in a memorandum. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U. S. 643) was announced while this criminal action was pending on appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (15 N Y 2d 671) and likewise by the Supreme Court of the United States (383 U. S. 502). The Supreme Court stated that the constitutional questions under Mapp v. Ohio were “ not presented by the record with sufficient clarity ” (supra, pp. 512-513). Moreover, it is not now sought to be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction but on the postconviction writ of error coram nobis where it is not available (People v. Muller, 11 N Y 2d 154; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618).

Concur: Judges Van Voorhis, Scileppi, Keating and Breitel. Chief Judge Fuld dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion in which Judges Burke and Bergan concur.

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U. S. 643) was announced while this criminal action was pending on appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (15 N Y 2d 671) and likewise by the Supreme Court of the United States (383 U. S. 502). The Supreme Court stated that the constitutional questions under Mapp v. Ohio were “ not presented by the record with sufficient clarity ” (supra, pp. 512-513). Moreover, it is not now sought to be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction but on the postconviction writ of error coram nobis where it is not available (People v. Muller, 11 N Y 2d 154; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618).

Concur: Judges Van Voorhis, Scileppi, Keating and Breitel. Chief Judge Fuld dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion in which Judges Burke and Bergan concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 N.E.2d 454, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mishkin-ny-1967.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack