People v. Teams

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Teams

222 N.E.2d 603, 18 N.Y.2d 835, 275 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1033

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 222 N.E.2d 603 (People v. Teams) 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. Teams, 222 N.E.2d 603, 18 N.Y.2d 835, 275 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

[837]*837Memorandum. The evidence taken from the defendant at the place of his arrest was properly received in evidence (see People v. Peters, 18 N Y 2d 238; People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441; People v. Santiago, 13 N Y 2d 326, 334). The prearraignment statements made by the defendant were properly received in evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77). Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan 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

[837]*837Memorandum. The evidence taken from the defendant at the place of his arrest was properly received in evidence (see People v. Peters, 18 N Y 2d 238; People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441; People v. Santiago, 13 N Y 2d 326, 334). The prearraignment statements made by the defendant were properly received in evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77). Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).

Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan 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 603, 18 N.Y.2d 835, 275 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-teams-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack