People v. Watts
| Decision Date | 11 March 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 878,289 N.Y.S.2d 928 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John WATTS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for respondent; J. Mitchell Rosenberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Alice Daniel, New York City, of counsel.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 18, 1966, affirmed. Although a Huntley hearing was requested and held, no proof was submitted on the issue of the voluntariness of the alleged oral statement; nor was such proof elicited on the trial. In fact it was always defendant's contention that he had never made the oral statement attributed to him by the police officer. Thus, People v. Mials, 27 A.D.2d 944, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1020, and People v. Rensing, 27 A.D.2d 838, 277 N.Y.S.2d 766, affd. 20 N.Y.2d 936, 286 N.Y.S.2d 481, 233 N.E.2d 459, are clearly distinguishable.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wheeler
...or unless an affirmative waiver of the right to have the issue submitted to the jury is apparent from the record. In People v. Watts, 29 A.D.2d 878, 289 N.Y.S.2d 928, we held that the here holding of a Huntley hearing did not require submission of the question of voluntariness to the jury I......
- People v. Bischone