People v. Nadile
| Decision Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Citation | 271 N.Y.S.2d 723,26 A.D.2d 765 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony NADILE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irwin Birnbaum, Syracuse, for appellant.
Francis R. Moran, Syracuse, for respondent (Lucien Ali, Syracuse, of counsel).
Before BASTOW, J.P., and GOLDMAN, HENRY and MARSH, JJ.
In this post conviction proceeding to determine the question of voluntariness of two statements, parts of which were received in evidence upon defendant's trial, the Justice who presided at the hearing made no finding respecting the voluntariness of one of the statements. His finding that the other statement was voluntarily made by defendant did not find that voluntariness thereof was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Findings were made that the statements were not confessions but were exculpatory statements and, as such, could not be the bases for relief under the rule stated in People v. Huntley (15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179). We do not agree with such findings.
Although the statements did not contain any direct confession by defendant that he committed the crime charged against him, they did contain admissions of facts which were used against him on the trial. Objections interposed by his trial attorney sufficiently raised the question of the voluntariness of the statements and the Trial Court charged the Jury on that issue. The right to a hearing and determination on the issue of voluntariness allowed by the Huntley decision is not limited to confessions but also includes statements containing admissions. (People v. Harden, 17 N.Y.2d 470, 266 N.Y.S.2d 978, 214 N.E.2d 159; People v. Hill and Catanzaro, 17 N.Y.2d 185, 269 N.Y.S.2d 422, 216 N.E.2d 588; People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973, 975, 259 N.Y.S.2d 859, 860, 207 N.E.2d 529)
We return the case to Supreme Court for determination of the voluntariness of the statements as presented at the hearing and for an appropriate decision which shall contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law nad if the Justice finds voluntariness, he must determine and decide whether it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Veitch, 25 A.D.2d 494, 266 N.Y.S.2d 688)
Case held and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Sullivan, J.) for further proceedings in accordance with the Memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utley
...pursuant to the Huntley decision is not limited to confessions, but also extends to statements of admissions (People v. Nadile, 26 A.D.2d 765, 271 N.Y.S.2d 723; People v. Gore, 22 A.D.2d 1011, 254 N.Y.S.2d 565; People v. Ross, 21 N.Y.2d 258, 287 N.Y.S.2d 376, 234 N.E.2d 427; People v. Hill,......
-
People v. Schwartz
... ... Lee, 27 A.D.2d 700, 277 N.Y.S.2d 79). The statute applies to statements in the form of admissions reflecting a consciousness of guilt (People v. Hill, 17 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 269 N.Y.S.2d 422, 425, 216 N.E.2d 588, 590; People v. Nadile, 26 A.D.2d 765, 271 ... N.Y.S.2d 723). That the statement may have been intended by the defendant to exculpate himself from an accusation of the crime does not avoid the necessity for compliance by the People with the statute. What the defendant may believe would detour the police into other ... ...
- Simmons v. Westwood Apartments Co.
-
People v. Nadile
...a hearing, and after resubmission, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for Murder, 1st degree rendered March 27, 1941.) 26 A.D.2d 765, 271 N.Y.S.2d 723. ...