People v. Rose

Citation27 N.Y.2d 882,317 N.Y.S.2d 358
Parties, 265 N.E.2d 770 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Pasquale Delle ROSE, Appellant.
Decision Date18 November 1970
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Donald Stuart Bab, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Burton B. Roberts, New York City (Daniel J. Jullivan, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, Abraham J. Gellinoff, J., rendered judgment, and the defendant appealed.

The defendant filed his brief with the Appellate Division requesting a remand for a hearing pursuant to People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179, to determine voluntariness of incriminating statements which had been admitted into evidence at the trial. The Huntley hearing was held before Gellinoff, J., who held that all incriminating statements used at trial were voluntarily made. An appeal was taken from such decision.

The judgment of conviction and the Huntley hearing decision were both unanimously affirmed without opinion.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of a Justice of the Court of Appeals. The defendant contended in the Court of Appeals that the Huntley hearing should be given no weight, as its purpose was misconstrued by the hearing judge, that defendant's statements, as a matter of law, could not have been found to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant's statements, as a matter of law, could not have been found to be true and reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant's treatment by police authorities violated the New York State guarantees of right to counsel and due process of law, that prejudicial error occurred in the charge on voluntariness and in admission of incompetent testimony, and that if statements obtained below were excluded or if prejudicial error occurred below, no evidence remained for a new trial and indictment should be dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States ex rel. Delle Rose v. LaVallee, 71 Civ. 5111.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • May 16, 1972
    ......Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). Accordingly, when petitioner appealed his conviction, the parties stipulated that the trial court should hold a Huntley hearing, the familiar New York procedure named for People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 (1965). For purposes of that hearing, the prosecution rested upon the trial record. Petitioner also relied upon the record, but took the witness stand to give supplementary testimony. The trial judge rendered a written decision. His opinion ......
  • People v. Taylor
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1971
    ...... (See, also, People v. Delle Rose, 27 N.Y.2d 882, 265 N.Y.S.2d 770, 317 N.E.2d 358, also decided today.) It follows, therefore, that, since the defendant did not have an attorney representing him in this case--or desire one--there was no [266 N.E.2d 633] violation of his right to counsel, and his statements were properly received ......
  • United States ex rel. Rose v. LaVallee
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • October 27, 1972
    ......The issue of voluntariness had been decided adversely to petitioner in an unreported decision by Justice Gellinoff in the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County in 1968; his decision was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department, People v. Rose, 33 A.D.2d 657 (1969), and the Court of Appeals, 27 N.Y.2d 882, 317 N.Y.S.2d 358, 265 N.E.2d 770 (1970); and certiorari was denied, 402 U.S. 913, 91 S.Ct. 1395, 28 L.Ed.2d 656 (1971).         In Delle Rose's pre-Jackson v. Denno trial, the prosecution sought to prove and his ......
  • People v. Ramos
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 1976
    ...'an attorney (has) enter(ed) the proceedings' in connection with the charges under investigation. (See, also, People v. Delle Rose, 27 N.Y.2d 882, 317 N.Y.S.2d 358, 265 N.E.2d 770, also decided today.) It follows, therefore, that, since the defendant did not have an attorney representing hi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT