From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Conilio

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 21, 1968
243 N.E.2d 751 (N.Y. 1968)

Opinion

Argued October 14, 1968

Decided November 21, 1968

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, EMILIO NUNEZ, J.

Arnold E. Wallach for appellant.

Burton B. Roberts, Acting District Attorney ( Roy Broudny of counsel), for respondent.


Judgment modified to the extent of remitting the case to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, and directing a de novo hearing on the issue of voluntariness of the confession introduced as a part of the People's case at the trial and, as so modified, affirmed. Where, as in the present case, the record clearly indicates that the Judge conducting the Huntley hearing specifically refused or failed to consider relevant evidence adduced on the issue of voluntariness, it cannot be said that a defendant has been afforded an opportunity to have a fair and reliable determination on that issue ( Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 377). Under such circumstances, a new Huntley hearing is mandated.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN.


Summaries of

People v. Conilio

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 21, 1968
243 N.E.2d 751 (N.Y. 1968)
Case details for

People v. Conilio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES CONILIO…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 21, 1968

Citations

243 N.E.2d 751 (N.Y. 1968)
243 N.E.2d 751
296 N.Y.S.2d 147

Citing Cases

People v. Sanders

This was, of course, error ( Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 389-394) and the firm ruling made by the…

People v. Rosa

A de novo hearing is mandated wherein the totality of the circumstances, including evidence as to…