People v. Graham

• Decision Date: 15 June 1970
• Citation: 313 N.Y.S.2d 753,27 N.Y.2d 616
• Parties: , 261 N.E.2d 661 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Burton C. GRAHAM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 753

313 N.Y.S.2d 753

27 N.Y.2d 616, 261 N.E.2d 661

PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Burton C. GRAHAM, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 15, 1970.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 27 A.D.2d 203, 277 N.Y.S.2d 943.

Philip C. Learned, Elmira, for appellant-defendant.

John F. O'Mara, Jr., Elmira (D. Bruce Crew, III, Elmira, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

The People appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, Chemung County, Harold E. Simpson, J., which, after a Huntley hearing, directed on a coram nobis application, found (1) that a written statement made by defendant and received in evidence on 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 second degree murder had previously been rendered but was subsequently modified by Appellate Division, 20 A.D.2d 949, 249 N.Y.S.2d 97.

The victim of the homicide was the estranged wife of the defendant. It was important to investigation to ascertain whether defendant had been on premises occupied by victim and her children when she was fatally injured. There was proof that small children had said that defendant, their father, had come there in the night. A police officer told defendant that officer did not want to bring the children into the case but that he would have to do so. The defendant then admitted that he was present and killed his wife. On the Huntley hearing he said that he feared even physical harm would come to the children at the hands of the police and that he would do anything to avoid bringing the children in.

The Appellate Division, Gibson, Presiding Justice, reversed the order of the Special Term, on the law and the facts, dismissed the coram nobis application on the merits, and remitted the matter to the Special Term for further proceedings. The Appellate Division held that there was no credible evidence or any reasonable inference that the police utilized or took improper advantage of whatever concern defendant may have had for his children to extract from him an involuntary statement.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Order affirmed on the opinion at the Appellate Division.

All concur except GIBSON, J., taking no part.