407 U.S. 203 (1972), 71-6425, Ivan v. City of New York

Docket Nº:No. 71-6425
Citation:407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659
Party Name:Ivan v. City of New York
Case Date:June 12, 1972
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 203

407 U.S. 203 (1972)

92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659

Ivan

v.

City of New York

No. 71-6425

United States Supreme Court

June 12, 1972

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE

DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,

FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Syllabus

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, which held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential to due process at the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult, must be given fully retroactive effect.

Certiorari granted; 37 App.Div.2d 822, 324 N.Y.S.2d 934, reversed and remanded.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

The Court held in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, decided March 31, 1970, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the essentials of due process and fair treatment that must be afforded at the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. In this case, on January 6, 1970, before Winship was decided, petitioner was adjudged a delinquent in the Family Court of Bronx County, New York, on a finding, based on the preponderance of evidence standard, that, at knifepoint, he forcibly took a bicycle from another boy, an act that, if done by an adult, would constitute the [92 S.Ct. 1952] crime of robbery in the first degree. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the ground that Winship should be retroactively applied to all cases still in the appellate process, 35 App.Div.2d 806, 316 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1970). The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Winship was not to be applied retroactively, 29 N.Y.2d 583,

Page 204

272 N.E.2d 895 (1971). * On remand, the Appellate Division thereupon affirmed the delinquency adjudication, 37 App.Div.2d 822, 324 N.Y.S.2d 934 (1971), and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal from that affirmance, 29 N.Y.2d 489 (1972). We disagree with the holding of the Court of Appeals that Winship is not to be applied retroactively.

Where the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truthfinding function, and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials, the new rule has been given complete retroactive effect. Neither good faith reliance by state or federal authorities on prior constitutional law or...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP