From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1935
244 App. Div. 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Opinion

May 3, 1935.

Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, County of New York.

Robert J. Fitzsimmons of counsel [ James P. Casey with him on the brief; Robert J. Fitzsimmons, attorney], for the appellant.

Vincent A. Catoggio, Jr., of counsel [ William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., MERRELL, McAVOY, O'MALLEY and UNTERMYER, JJ.


We are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant's alleged oral confession to the police officer, which was essential to sustain the People's case, was procured by violence and intimidation. Furthermore, it was error to deny the defendant's counsel the right to examine the police officer concerning the circumstances under which the alleged confession was secured before receiving it in evidence. ( People v. Rogers, 192 N.Y. 331; People v. Brasch, 193 id. 46.)

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.


Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.


Summaries of

People v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1935
244 App. Div. 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
Case details for

People v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN W. HOLLAND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 3, 1935

Citations

244 App. Div. 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
279 N.Y.S. 372

Citing Cases

People v. Tuomey

The majority is of the opinion that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a voir dire examination with…