From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1965
213 N.E.2d 321 (N.Y. 1965)

Summary

In People v. Taylor (16 N.Y.2d 1038) we reiterated that denial of access to the defendant's family was germane, but in no wise controlling on the question of voluntariness.

Summary of this case from People v. Hocking

Opinion

Argued October 26, 1965

Decided November 24, 1965

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GERALD P. CULKIN, J.

Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney ( Malvina H. Guggenheim and H. Richard Uviller of counsel), for appellant.

Myron J. Greene and Sol Rabkin for respondent.


MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be modified and the case remitted to that court for determination of questions of fact and for the consideration of such questions of law as it may have deemed unnecessary to consider in view of its direction for a new trial. If, on such further consideration, the Appellate Division is of opinion that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed, it shall then direct a Huntley-type hearing on the voluntary character of the confession. The decision in People v. Hocking ( 15 N.Y.2d 973), made after the decision in this case at the Appellate Division, held that the refusal of the police to permit defendant's father to see him did not alone invalidate the confession. In following that decision we are required to hold that, in the present case, defendant's confession was not made inadmissible solely because his family was refused access to him but that this fact would be germane on the issue of its voluntary nature.

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI and BERGAN concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings not inconsistent with the memorandum herein.


Summaries of

People v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1965
213 N.E.2d 321 (N.Y. 1965)

In People v. Taylor (16 N.Y.2d 1038) we reiterated that denial of access to the defendant's family was germane, but in no wise controlling on the question of voluntariness.

Summary of this case from People v. Hocking

In People v Taylor (16 N.Y.2d 1038, 1039-1040, supra), the Court of Appeals adhered to the Hocking rule: "[W]e are required to hold that, in the present case, defendant's confession was not made inadmissible solely because his family was refused access to him but that this fact would be germane on the issue of its voluntary nature."

Summary of this case from People v. Castro
Case details for

People v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. RICHARD TAYLOR…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 24, 1965

Citations

213 N.E.2d 321 (N.Y. 1965)
213 N.E.2d 321
265 N.Y.S.2d 913

Citing Cases

People v. Townsend

Addressing himself to the fact that the defendant's mother had, throughout the interrogation, attempted to…

People v. Salaam

The particular reliance on this case by the dissent overlooks these many critical distinctions (dissenting…