3 N.Y.2d 596, People v. Caminito
|Citation:||3 N.Y.2d 596, 148 N.E.2d 139, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799|
|Opinion Judge:||FULD, Judge. FROESSEL, Judge.|
|Party Name:||The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Santo CAMINITO, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles NOIA, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||[148 N.E.2d 141]Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for appellants. Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Chief Judge CONWAY and Judges DESMOND and VAN VOORHIS concur with Judge FULD. Judge FROESSEL concurs in result only in a separate opinion in which Judges DYE and BURKE concur. Chief Judge CONWAY and Judges DESMOND, DYE, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE concur.|
|Case Date:||January 23, 1958|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
[148 N.E.2d 140]Prosecution for murder, against one whose prior conviction for the offense had been set aside pursuant to federal habeas corpus proceeding on ground that confession had been improperly admitted. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered June 18, 1957, 4 A.D.2d 697, 163 N.Y.S.2d 699, which (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the County Court of Kings County, George J. Joyce, J., granting a motion to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with a crime of murder in the first degree, and (2) denied the motion and remanded the defendant to the County Court, the defendant appealed by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals. Another proceeding upon application to vacate the judgment of conviction in first degree murder prosecution. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered June 17, 1957, 4 A.D.2d 698, 163 N.Y.S.2d 796, which (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the County Court of Kings County, George J. Joyce, J., 3 Misc.2d 447, 158 N.Y.S.2d 683, vacating a judgment of such court rendered upon a verdict convicting such defendant of crime of murder in the first degree and ordering a new trial, and (2) denied the motion to vacate said judgment of conviction, the defendant appealed by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Division stated that ‘ finding of fact herein are hereby affirmed’ . The appeals were consolidated. The Court of Appeals, Fuld, J., held inter alia, that where evidence presented to grand jury, consisting of testimony of confessions by defendant and proof of corpus delicti, was sufficient to warrant conviction of murder in the first degree by trial jury, indictment was immune from attack upon retrial notwithstanding fact that defendant's conviction had been set aside pursuant to federal habeas corpus writ on ground that confessions had been improperly admitted, and that in proceeding upon application to vacate the judgment of conviction in first-degree murder prosecution on ground that conviction had been procured in violation of due process judgment could not be vacated in view of defendant's failure to appeal from judgment of conviction notwithstanding that codefendants who had appealed and prosecuted habeas corpus proceedings obtained beneficial results since his failure to pursue usual and accepted appellate procedure to gain review of conviction did not entitle him later to utilize the present day counterpart of extraordinary writ of error coram nobis.
Concerned though we are with appeals in two separate cases, one involving Santo Caminito, the other, Charles Noia, we treat them together since they stem from the same prosecution and involve facts common to both.
Caminito, Noia and Frank Bonino were indicted in 1941 for the murder of one Hammeroff. At the trial, the only evidence of guilt consisted of confessions signed by each defendant in which he acknowledged participation in an attempted robbery of Hammeroff terminating in his fatal shooting. Concluding that the confessions were not coerced, as the defendants contended, and that their contents were true, the jury found the three defendants guilty of felony murder and the trial judge, upon the jury's recommendation, sentenced each to life imprisonment. Only Caminito and Bonino appealed and their judgments of conviction were affirmed ( 265 A.D. 960, 38 N.Y.S.2d 1019,291 N.Y. 541, 50 N.E.2d 654, motions for reargument denied 296 N.Y. 1004, 73 N.E.2d 579,297 N.Y. 882, 79 N.E.2d 277, certiorari denied (as to Bonino) 333 U.S. 849, 68 S.Ct. 654, 92 L.Ed. 1131, (as to Caminito)348 U.S. 839, 75 S.Ct. 46, 99 L.Ed. 662). Some years later, Caminito sought redress in the federal courts by way of habeas corpus; the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reversing the District Court, sustained the writ on the ground that it appeared, upon facts ‘ not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP