People v. Swanberg

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Swanberg

209 N.E.2d 122, 16 N.Y.2d 649, 261 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1339

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 209 N.E.2d 122 (People v. Swanberg) 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. Swanberg, 209 N.E.2d 122, 16 N.Y.2d 649, 261 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1339 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s statements to the police introduced as a part of the People’s case at the trial and, as so modified, affirmed. Case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for such hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72). No opinion.

[651]*651Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis, Scileppi and Bergan. Judges Fuld and Bubke dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the indictment upon the ground, more fully developed in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, that the evidence admitted against defendant was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. (See, also, Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48; Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493; Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610; Ker v. California 374 U. S. 23, 42 n. 13.)

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

Judgment modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s statements to the police introduced as a part of the People’s case at the trial and, as so modified, affirmed. Case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for such hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72). No opinion.

[651]*651Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis, Scileppi and Bergan. Judges Fuld and Bubke dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the indictment upon the ground, more fully developed in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, that the evidence admitted against defendant was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. (See, also, Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48; Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493; Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610; Ker v. California 374 U. S. 23, 42 n. 13.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.E.2d 122, 16 N.Y.2d 649, 261 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swanberg-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack