People v. Butler
| Citation | 28 N.Y.2d 499,318 N.Y.S.2d 943 |
| Parties | , 267 N.E.2d 587 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Peter BUTLER, Appellant, and Richard Conroy, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1971 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367.
By judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, the defendants were convicted of murder in the first degree as a felony murder and they appealed.
The Appellate Division entered judgment affirming the conviction of the defendant Peter Butler, but withheld its determination as to judgment of conviction with respect to the defendant Richard Conroy and remitted the matter for an evidentiary and suppression hearing because notwithstanding the district attorney's representation that no leads or evidence had been obtained from wire taps, the defendant was still entitled to test whether certain concededly illegal taps did lead to information which was improperly used at trial. Permission was granted to defendant, whose conviction was affirmed, to appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Butler v. Schubin, 73 Civ. 4215.
... ... Petitioner first contends that he was entitled to the withheld tape recordings under New York's rule enunciated in People v. Rosario, 11 generally considered to be the State's counterpart of the Jencks rule. 12 Under Rosario, a defendant is entitled to inspect only those prior statements of a witness which relate to the subject matter of the witness' testimony. The State argues that none of the conversations in ... ...
-
United States ex rel. Conroy v. Bombard
... ... The substance of that call was to state that Peter Butler and Richard Conroy were involved in the murder of Charles Gallagher and that Conroy had confessed to one Lynne Richardson. The contents of the ... In addition, Conroy challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt ... The People responded by arguing that the Petitioner's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the People did agree that Petitioner Conroy was ... ...
-
People v. Varacalli
... ... If an eavesdropping device was the subject of defendants' instant motion to suppress, there would be no question but that defendants lacked standing (People v. Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, 445 N.Y.S.2d 125, 429 N.E.2d 803; People v. Sardegna, 91 A.D.2d 671, 457 N.Y.S.2d 123; People v. Butler, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 499, 318 N.Y.S.2d 943, 267 N.E.2d 587). That conclusion must, of necessity, be the same for a pen register with audio capacity ... Defendants' motions be and the same hereby are denied for lack of standing ... --------------- ... ...
-
People v. Consolazio
...675, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 355, 275 N.Y.S.2d 377, 221 N.E.2d 909; cf. People v. Butler, 33 A.D.2d 675, 305 N.Y.S.2d 367, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 499, 318 N.Y.S.2d 943, 267 N.E.2d 587.) Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor's worksheets, containing as they do abbreviated notes capsulizing witnesses......