People v. Pena

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Pena

222 N.E.2d 604, 18 N.Y.2d 837, 275 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1034

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 222 N.E.2d 604 (People v. Pena) 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. Pena, 222 N.E.2d 604, 18 N.Y.2d 837, 275 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1034 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

MemoRandum. The evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant was properly received into evidence; there was no need to disclose the informer’s identity (People v. Valentine, 17 N Y 2d 128; People v. White, 16 N Y 2d 270; People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86). The statements made at the scene were properly admitted into evidence (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77). Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable to the present case (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith) and reach no other question.

Upon reargument: Judgment affirmed in a Memorandum.

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

MemoRandum. The evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant was properly received into evidence; there was no need to disclose the informer’s identity (People v. Valentine, 17 N Y 2d 128; People v. White, 16 N Y 2d 270; People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86). The statements made at the scene were properly admitted into evidence (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77). Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable to the present case (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith) and reach no other question.

Upon reargument: Judgment affirmed in a Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 N.E.2d 604, 18 N.Y.2d 837, 275 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pena-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack