People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 24 November 1965 |
| Citation | 213 N.E.2d 321,265 N.Y.S.2d 913,16 N.Y.2d 1038 |
| Parties | , 213 N.E.2d 321 The PEOPLE etc., Appellant, v. Richard TAYLOR, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 22 A.D.2d 524, 256 N.Y.S.2d 944.
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, and he appealed, contending that his confession used against him on the trial was obtained after he asked the privilege of calling his family and after his family sought unsuccessfully to see him, and that he had a constitutional right to consult with his family before being further interrogated by the police, and that therefore the confession was involuntarily obtained and inadmissible.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial and held that conflicting evidence as to whether defendant requested to see his family before confessing to the police and as to whether his request had been refused presented questions for the jury, and that failure to submit such questions required reversal and new trial.
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.
Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller, Malvina H. Guggenheim, New York City, of cunsel), for appellant.
Myron J. Greene and Sol Rabkin, New York City, for respondent.
Order of the Appellate Division should be modified and the case remitted to that court for determination of questions of fact and for the consideration of such questions of law as it may have deemed unnecessary to consider in view of its direction for a new trial. If, on such further consideration, the Appellate Division is of opinion that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed, it shall then direct a Huntley-type hearing on the voluntary character of the confession. The decision in People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973, 259 N.Y.S.2d 859, 207 N.E.2d 529, made after the decision in this case at the Appellate Division, held that the refusal of the police to permit defendant's father to see him did not alone invalidate the confession. In following that decision we are required to hold that, in the present case, defendant's confession was not made inadmissible solely because his family was refused access to him but that this fact would be germane on the issue of its voluntary nature.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker
...relating to pre-confession warnings (cf. People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973, 259 N.Y.S.2d 859, 207 N.E.2d 529; People v. Taylor, 16 N.Y.2d 1038, 265 N.Y.S.2d 913, 213 N.E.2d 321). Under the circumstances, however, we found it 'inconceivable that any prejudice could have resulted to the accuse......
-
People v. Castro
...age is only one of the factors to be considered in determining the voluntariness of a defendant's statement. (People v. Taylor, 16 N.Y.2d 1038, 265 N.Y.S.2d 913, 213 N.E.2d 321; People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973, 259 N.Y.S.2d 859, 207 N.E.2d JUVENILE WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS: "TOTALITY" VS. ......
-
Williams, In re
...in passing upon the voluntariness of the defendant's statements'. This decision was followed by People v. Taylor, 16 N.Y.2d 1038, 1039, 265 N.Y.S.2d 913, 213 N.E.2d 321, in which the Court of Appeals modified a decision of the Appellate Division (22 A.D.2d 524, 526, 256 N.Y.S.2d 944, 946) h......
-
United States ex rel. Rosner v. WARDEN, NY STATE PEN.
...speak to his wife amount to a request for counsel within the New York rule as set forth in Donovan, supra. People v. Taylor, 16 N.Y.2d 1038, 265 N.Y.S.2d 913, 213 N.E.2d 321 (1965); see People v. Hocking, 15 N.Y.2d 973, 259 N.Y.S.2d 859, 207 N.E.2d 529 The federal rule is even more stringen......