People v. Mials
| Decision Date | 17 April 1967 |
| Citation | 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020,27 A.D.2d 944 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frederick MIALS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and UGHETTA, RABIN, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 14, 1965, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, reversed on the law and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have not been considered.
In the jury's absence, a preliminary Huntley hearing was held as to the voluntariness of certain statements by defendant. The trial court found them voluntary and they were thereafter received in evidence without objection. The issue of voluntariness of the statements was not submitted to the jury by the court's charge, despite the fact that this issue had been raised by the request for a preliminary Huntley hearing and by cross-examination of various witnesses as to defendant's condition when he made the statements. Defense counsel did not except to the charge in this respect and did not request that the issue of voluntariness be submitted to the jury.
Absent a clear concession of voluntariness or a clear waiver of the right to a jury trial of that issue, such issue must be submitted to the jury, despite the fact that it has preliminarily been passed upon by the trial court in the jury's absence (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179; New York State Constitution, art. I, § 2). In our opinion, there has been here no concession of voluntariness and no clear, affirmative waiver of the basic right to have the issue of voluntariness submitted to the jury; and that issue has been preserved for appellate review, despite the failure to except to the charge or request addition of the issue to the charge (People v. O'Neill, 11 N.Y.2d 148, 227 N.Y.S.2d 416, 182 N.E.2d 95; People v. Coffey, 11 N.Y.2d 142, 227 N.Y.S.2d 412, 182 N.E.2d 92; cf. People v. Friola, 11 N.Y.2d 157, 227 N.Y.S.2d 423, 182 N.E.2d 100; People v. Rensing, 27 A.D.2d 838, 277 N.Y.S.2d 766, decided March 6, 1967; People v. Castro, 19 N.Y.2d 14, 277 N.Y.S.2d 644, 224 N.E.2d 80; People v. De Renzzio, 19 N.Y.2d 45, 277 N.Y.S.2d 668, 224 N.E.2d 97). Hence, the failure to submit this issue to the jury is prejudicial, reversible error. Even if we were to assume Arguendo that the failure to except to the charge constituted a waiver of the error, we would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cesare
...N.E.2d 459; People v. Watts, 29 A.D.2d 878, 289 N.Y.S.2d 928; People v. Baksys, 26 A.D.2d 648, 272 N.Y.S.2d 488; cf. People v. Mials, 27 A.D.2d 944, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020). Moreover, if error did occur it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.......
-
Grimaldi v. State, 6982
...238 Or. 590, 395 P.2d 874, 879 (1964); People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 (1965); People v. Mials, 27 A.D.2d 944, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1022 (1967); People v. Bevins, 54 Cal.2d 71, 4 Cal.Rptr. 504, 351 P.2d 776, 779--780 (1960); State v. Breaker, 178 Neb. 887, 13......
-
People v. Cefaro
...question to the jury assumes that voluntariness has somehow been contested by a defendant During the trial. In People v. Mials, 27 A.D.2d 944, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020, another case relied upon by defendants, the trial court after a Huntley hearing found the defendant's confession voluntary. On th......
-
People v. Wheeler
...jury for its determination if the trial court has independently determined that question adversely to the defendant. In People v. Mials, 27 A.D.2d 944, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020, this court decided that it was error not to submit the question of voluntariness to the jury despite the failure of defe......