People v. Wofford

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Wofford

388 N.E.2d 735, 46 N.Y.2d 962, 415 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1872

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 388 N.E.2d 735 (People v. Wofford) 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. Wofford, 388 N.E.2d 735, 46 N.Y.2d 962, 415 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1872 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In this concededly tragic case, recognizing the very limited scope of appellate review in our court, we cannot conclude that the determination of the suppression court, now affirmed at the Appellate Division, that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional preinterrogation rights, was erroneous as a matter of law. Nor can we conclude as a matter of law either that the trial court applied the incorrect standard of criminal responsibility or that appellant’s criminal responsibility was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the presence in the record of considerable evidence that appellant may have lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct and that such conduct was wrong. (Penal Law, § 30.05.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In this concededly tragic case, recognizing the very limited scope of appellate review in our court, we cannot conclude that the determination of the suppression court, now affirmed at the Appellate Division, that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional preinterrogation rights, was erroneous as a matter of law. Nor can we conclude as a matter of law either that the trial court applied the incorrect standard of criminal responsibility or that appellant’s criminal responsibility was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the presence in the record of considerable evidence that appellant may have lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct and that such conduct was wrong. (Penal Law, § 30.05.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 N.E.2d 735, 46 N.Y.2d 962, 415 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wofford-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack