People v. Graham
| Citation | 277 N.Y.S.2d 943,27 A.D.2d 203 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Burton C. GRAHAM, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1967 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Paul H. McCabe, Dist. Atty. of Chemung County, Elmira, for appellant.
Philip C. Learned, Elmira, for defendant-respondent.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, AULISI and GABRIELLI, JJ.
This is an appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which, after a Huntley hearing directed upon a Coram nobis application, (1) found that a written statement made by defendant and received in evidence upon his trial had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been voluntarily given, and (2) ordered a new trial. A judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree had previously been rendered, on February 24, 1962, and was subsequently modified by this court (20 A.D.2d 949, 249 N.Y.S.2d 97).
The victim of the homicide was defendant's estranged wife and it was important to the investigation to ascertain whether defendant had been upon the premises occupied by her and her children when she sustained the injuries that caused her death. There was proof that the small children had said that their father had come there in the night. Upon interrogation by police officers, defendant for some time denied this, whereupon one of the officers, said, 'I don't want to bring the children into this but I will if I have to', and defendant then or about that time admitted his presence at the wife's house at about 3:00 A.M. and gave a statement in question and answer form in which he said that after a violent quarrel with his wife, in the course of which he silenced her screams by putting his hand over her mouth he placed her in a bathtub, ran water into the tub and departed leaving his wife unconscious and his children unattended. In his statement, he denied that he intended to cause his wife's death or that he knew that she was dead when he left, if in fact she was. On the Huntley hearing he said that he feared even physical harm would come to the children at the hands of the police and said that he would 'do anything to avoid bringing the children in.'
In holding the defendant's statement involuntary, Special Term found: 'There is no evidence of abuse of the petitioner, there is no evidence of any beating, the evidence was that his needs were properly attended to; the simple question is whether, under all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waltemade, Matter of
...Rose, 410 U.S. 690, 93 S.Ct. 1203, 35 L.Ed.2d 637; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179; People v. Graham, 27 A.D.2d 203, 277 N.Y.S.2d 943, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 616, 313 N.Y.S.2d 753). And, indeed, many State Constitutions provide for disciplining their judiciary by ......
-
United States ex rel. Graham v. Mancusi
...the conviction; at this time, October 22, 1965, Graham was released on bail. The Appellate Division reversed with an opinion, 27 A.D.2d 203, 277 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1967), and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division without one, 27 N.Y.2d 616, 313 N.Y.S.2d 753, 261 N.E.2d 661 (1970).......
-
Graham v. Smith
...The order of the district court is therefore affirmed. 1 People v. Graham, 20 A.D.2d 949, 249 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1964); People v. Graham, 27 A.D.2d 203, 277 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1967), aff'd mem. 27 N.Y.2d 616, 313 N.Y.S.2d 753, 261 N.E.2d 661 (1970); People v. Graham, 69 Misc.2d 670, 330 N.Y.S.2d 711 (......
-
People v. Graham
...been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered a new trial. Defendant was released on bail. We reversed the order (People v. Graham, 27 A.D.2d 203, 277 N.Y.S.2d 943) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on our opinion (27 N.Y.2d 616, 313 N.Y.S.2d 753, 261 N.E.2d 661). Bail was ......