In re Molineux
| Decision Date | 16 February 1904 |
| Citation | 177 N.Y. 395,69 N.E. 727 |
| Parties | In re MOLINEUX. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
In the matter of the application of Roland B. Molineux for writ of mandamus to Cornelius V. Collins, Superintendent of State Prisons. From an order of the Appellate Division (84 N. Y. Supp. 1136) affirming an order of the Special Term denying a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendant to deliver certain photographs and measurements in his custody to petitioner, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Robert G. Scherer and J. Murray Downs, for appellant.
John Cunneen, Atty. Gen. (Sanford T. Church, on the brief), for respondent.
On the 16th of February, 1900, the appellant, Roland B. Molineux, was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree, and sentence of death was pronounced against him. A warrant was at once issued to the warden of the state prison at Sing Sing commanding him to keep the said Molineux in solitary confinement until the time appointed for his execution, and to then put him to death in the manner provided by law. Before that time arrived enforcement of the sentence was stayed by the service of a notice of appeal to this court, which afterward reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial. The second trial resulted in an acquittal. During his imprisonment at Sing Sing a photograph was taken of Molineux, and he was measured according to the Bertillon system under the direction of the warden, who forwarded the negative, photograph, and measurements to the Superintendent of State Prisons at Albany, in whose office they have ever since remained as part of a collection which embraces similar data relating to criminals who have been lawfully convicted under the laws of the state. Upon an affidavit setting forth these facts, and alleging that said Molineux was unlawfully convicted, that the photograph was taken and measurements made against his wishes and without his consent, and that he is thus held out as a lawfully convicted criminal, a motion was made at Special Term for a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the Superintendent of State Prisons ‘to remove the plates, photographs, and measurements * * * from the records of his office and deliver the same to the said Roland B. Molineux.’ The motion was denied, and upon appeal to the Appellate Division the order was unanimously affirmed ‘as a matter of law, and not in the exercise of discretion.’ By an appeal to this court from the order of the Appellate Division, the question of power to issue the writ is now before us for decision.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a death warrant is delivered to the agent and warden of a state prison he is required to keep the defendant named therein ‘in solitary confinement at the said state prison’ until the infliction of the punishment of death upon him, or he is lawfully discharged. Section 491. By the prison law the Superintendent of State Prisons is authorized to ‘make rules and regulations for a record of photographs and other means of identifying each convict received into said prisons.’ Laws 1889, p. 511, c. 382, § 40. By an act passed in 1896, ‘to facilitate the identification of criminals,’ the Superintendent of State Prisons is required to ‘cause the prisoners in the state prisons therein confined at the time this act takes effect, and all prisoners thereinafter received under sentence, to be measured and described in accordance with the system commonly known as the Bertillon system for the identification of criminals.’ He is also required to ‘prescribe rules and regulations for keeping accurate records of such measurements at such prisons and in duplicate at his office in Albany and for classifying and indexing the same.’ Laws, 1896, p. 401, c. 440, § 1. The appellant claims that neither of the acts authorizing these methods of identification applied to him, because he was not a ‘convict’ within the meaning of the earlier, nor a prisoner ‘received under sentence’ within the meaning of the later. The Criminal Code, however, expressly refers to a prisoner confined in state prison under sentence of death as a ‘convict,’ and requires the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pritzker v. City of Hudson
...charges are dismissed." People v. Patterson, 78 N.Y.2d 711, 579 N.Y.S.2d 617, 618, 587 N.E.2d 255 (N.Y. 1991) (citing In re Molineux, 177 N.Y. 395, 69 N.E. 727 (1904); People v. Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408, 411 N.Y.S.2d 830). Rather, New York, "this entitlement ... is statutorily conferred by ......
-
Detroit Free Press Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
...one of the first appeals involving an acquitted man's suit to force police to return his booking photograph. In re Molineux , 177 N.Y. 395, 69 N.E. 727, 728–29 (1904). The court rejected the man's claim, explaining that his photograph was a matter of public record in which he had no legitim......
-
People v. Patterson
...right to the return of photographs, fingerprints or other indicia of arrest where charges are dismissed (see, Matter of Molineux v. Collins, 177 N.Y. 395, 69 N.E. 727; see also, People v. Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408, 411, 411 N.Y.S.2d 830). In New York, this entitlement to the return of such i......
-
Eddy v. Moore
...39 A.2d 851 (1944); Bartletta v. McFeeley, 107 N.J.Eq. 141, 152 A. 17 (1930), aff'd 109 N.J.Eq. 241, 156 A. 658 (1931); In re Molineux, 177 N.Y. 395, 69 N.E. 727 (1904); People ex rel. Joyce v. York, 27 Misc. 658, 59 N.Y.S. 418 (1899); Hansson v. Harris, 252 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Civ.App.1952); H......