People v. Jeffrey
Citation | 214 N.E.2d 791,267 N.Y.S.2d 514,17 N.Y.2d 515 |
Parties | , 214 N.E.2d 791 The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Leroy JEFFREY, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 20 January 1966 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 23 A.D.2d 846, 259 N.Y.S.2d 866.
Defendant was charged by indictment with first degree murder. The case was called for trial on July 7, 1964 and, after a jury was selected and sworn, the jurors were excused until July 13, 1964. A preliminary hearing was held by the trial judge on July 10, 1964 to determine the voluntariness of alleged confession by defendant, and the trial judge ruled that the alleged confession was involuntary and would be excluded from consideration by the jury. When the jury was brought into the courtroom the prosecutor stated that it would be futile to proceed with the trial because the suppression of the alleged confession rendered the People's proof insufficient to obtain a conviction.
The Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Bronx County, Nathaniel T. Helman, J., directed a verdict of acquittal and entered an order granting a motion by the defendant to dismiss the indictment, and the People of the State of New York appealed.
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal and held that order entered on verdict of acquittal by direction of court was not appealable, and that appeal did not lie from dismissal of indictment because of insufficiency of evidence, and that determination that confession was involuntary was not appealable.
The People of the State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gold
...a confession, (sec. 518, subd. 6), no appeal was available. (People v. Jeffrey, 23 A.D.2d 846, 259 N.Y.S.2d 866, aff'd 17 N.Y.2d 515, 267 N.Y.S.2d 514, 214 N.E.2d 791). Conversely, the defendant is similarly limited and his right to appeal from an intermediate order is even more restricted.......
- Richter v. Rockeffeller
- Jankowski v. Crestburn Corp.