People ex rel. Odell v. Hall
| Decision Date | 17 September 1953 |
| Citation | 204 Misc. 713 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York ex rel. James Henry Odell, Relator,<BR>v.<BR>Clifford C. Hall, Individually and as Sheriff of County of Tompkins, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
John Lo Pinto and Michael Lo Pinto for relator.
Frederick B. Bryant, District Attorney, for The People of the State of New York.
The relator, James Henry Odell, after a preliminary examination before the City Judge of Ithaca acting as a magistrate, has been held to await the action of a grand jury upon a charge of grand larceny, first degree, in the alleged theft of an automobile. He brings this habeas corpus proceeding claiming that the evidence before the magistrate was not sufficient to warrant holding him because there was no proof submitted that the crime charged had been committed, other than relator's alleged written confession.
An information had been sworn to before the magistrate on July 26, 1953, by one Richard A. Lee charging the relator with the crime of grand larceny, first degree, in the theft of an Oldsmobile sedan from a certain area. Upon the preliminary examination of this charge, the only legal evidence offered was a written confession of the relator given to a police officer in which he admitted stealing an Oldsmobile automobile on or about the time and from the area in question.
The relator stated in his alleged confession that it was freely and voluntarily made without threats or promises, and that he knew it could be used against him in a court of law. He offered no evidence to the contrary at the hearing.
I have been able to find no authorities in this State upon the precise question involved. While the confession standing alone would be insufficient to warrant a conviction (Code Crim. Pro., § 395), I believe it is sufficient to warrant holding an accused for action of the grand jury where, as here, an information sufficient upon its face is before the magistrate charging him with the commission of the crime.
In United States v. Kallas (272 F. 742, 746) the court stated: "While the authorities are not uniform, I am of the opinion that a confession, freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge that the accused is not required to make it, and, if made, it may be used as evidence against him, is sufficient to constitute probable cause, and warrant the commissioner in holding the accused without further evidence of the corpus delicti." (Citing United States v. Bloomgart, Fed. Cas. No. 14,612, and United States v. Burr, Fed. Cas. No....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of d'Amico
...might furnish sufficient ground for a magistrate to hold an accused for action by the Grand Jury. See, e.g., People ex rel. Odell v. Hall, 204 Misc. 713, 124 N.Y.S.2d 289. However, the federal courts in extradition proceedings have consistently refused to follow state rules on preliminary h......
-
People v. Scarposi
...testimony becomes essential upon the trial only, and the Perkins Case does not change the rule in this regard.' In People ex rel. Odell v. Hall, 204 Misc. 713 (Sup.Ct., Tompkins Co. 1953) McAvoy, J., wrote (p. 714), 124 N.Y.S.2d 289, p. 'A preliminary examination is not a trial but merely a......
-
People v. Heredia
...It is not necessary that all of the essential elements of the crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People ex rel. Odell v. Hall, 204 Misc. 713, 124 N.Y.S.2d 289; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54, It is stated in the Commission Staff Comment to CPL 180.7......
-
People v. Scott
...is not intended as a pre-trial discovery device, nor is it a substitute for the trial itself.' (See also People ex rel. Odell v. Hall, 204 Misc. 713, 124 N.Y.S.2d 289, 290 (Sup.Ct., Tompkins County) not officially But, assuming, without admitting, that defendant should be permitted some lat......