People v. Bonino
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Citation | 135 N.E.2d 51,152 N.Y.S.2d 298,1 N.Y.2d 752 |
| Parties | , 135 N.E.2d 51 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank BONINO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Solon B. Hanft, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Upon reargument: Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered in accordance with the following memorandum: Since the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, has held that the writ of habeas corpus must issue to his codefendant Caminito because his confessions were inadmissible, the defendant Bonino should, in the interest of justice, receive a new trial with his (Bonino's) confessions excluded.
Defendant's 1942 sentence to life imprisonment for a felony murder was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, 265 App.Div. 960, 38 N.Y.S.2d 1019, and by this court, 291 N.Y. 541, 50 N.E.2d 654, and in 1947 we denied a motion made by him for reargument, 296 N.Y. 1004, 73 N.E.2d 579. Thereafter the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 333 U.S. 849, 68 S.Ct. 654, 92 L.Ed. 1131. During those proceedings this court twice considered and rejected defendant's argument, now pressed on us for the third time, that defendant's confession was illegally received in evidence because it was not voluntary but coerced. Now, on the third presentation to this court and upon renewed consideration of the same arguments, we of the dissent are agreed that our former decisions were right. The majority of this court, however, votes for a reversal of the conviction and for a new trial, holding that reversal is necessary or proper because the Federal courts (see United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 689, reversed 2 Cir., 222 F.2d 698, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 896, 76 S.Ct. 155; but see previous denial of certiorari in Caminito's criminal cause, 348 U.S. 839, 75 S.Ct. 46, 99 L.Ed. 662, in habeas corpus proceedings have ordered a new trial for one Caminito who was tried and convicted in the State courts jointly with this appellant Bonino and one Noia, the latter of whom did not appeal. The Federal Court of Appeals reversing the District Court sustained Caminito's writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the confession which was the only substantial showing of his guilt was inadmissible as matter of law because obtained by illegal methods 'not disputed', and that his trial and conviction were, therefore, an unconstitutional denial of due process of law. Appellant Bonino has taken no such proceedings in the Federal courts. This court now holds, however, that since the circumstances surrounding Bonino's confession are substantially similar to those surrounding Caminito's confession, Bonino, too, is entitled to a new trial with the confessions excluded.
As to Caminito, we must in obedience to the supremacy clause, U.S.Const. art. VI, § 2, honor and act upon his writ of habeas corpus issued under the authority of Federal law, U.S.Ccode, tit. 28, § 2241, subd. (c), par. (3); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469. But Bonino has not sought or obtained any such Federal writ and it would not be mere intransigence for us to say that we need not and should not automatically apply Caminito's writ to Bonino as if it covered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. La Vallee
......556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948. This unusual case is the prime example of one going the full circle as the citations show. People of State of New York v. Leyra, 302 N.Y. 353, 98 N.E.2d 553; 304 N.Y. 468, 108 N.E.2d 673, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 918, 73 S.Ct. 730, 97 L.Ed. ...The same cannot be said of its acceptance of lower federal court reversals. People v. Bonino, 1 N.Y.2d 752, 152 N.Y.S.2d 298, 135 N.E.2d 51; People v. Caminito, 3 N.Y.2d 596, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799, 148 N.E. 2d 139; see also United States ex rel. ......
-
Fay v. Noia, 84
...... . Noia was convicted in 1942 with Santo Caminito and Frank Bonino in the County Court of Kings County, New York, of a felony murder in the shooting and killing of one Hammeroff during the commission of a robbery. . ...See People v. Noia, decided sub nom. People v. Caminito, 3 N.Y.2d 596, 601, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799, 804, 148 N.E.2d 139, 143. In other words, the State claims that it ......
-
United States v. Fay
......See 82 S.Ct. 1140. . WATERMAN, Circuit Judge. . Relator, Charles Noia, and two others, Frank Bonino and Santo Caminito, were convicted twenty years ago under the laws of the State of New York for the crime of murder in the first degree upon an ... Caminito appealed their convictions to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, and, on affirmance by that court, People v. Bonino, 265 App.Div. 960, 38 N.Y.S.2d 1019 (1942), appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, 291 N.Y. 541, 50 N.E.2d 654 (1943). Noia did not ......
-
Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera v. State of New York Westover v. United States State of California v. Stewart 8212 761, 584
...... the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, (were) not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when ...See United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, 222 F.2d 698 (C.A.2d Cir. 1955) (Frank, J.); People v. Bonino, 1 N.Y.2d 752, 152 N.Y.S.2d 298, 135 N.E.2d 51 (1956). . 26. The absurdity of denying that a confession obtained under these circumstances is ......