v. City of New York 8212 6425
Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
Citation | 32 L.Ed.2d 659,407 U.S. 203,92 S.Ct. 1951 |
Parties | Ivan V. v. CITY OF NEW YORK. —6425 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Court held in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, decided March 31, 1970, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the essentials of due process and fair treatment that must be afforded at the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. In this case, on January 6, 1970, before Winship was decided, petitioner was adjudged a delinquent in the Family Court of Bronx County, New York, on a finding, based on the preponderance-of-evidence standard, that, at knifepoint, he forcibly took a bicycle from another boy, an act that, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the ground that Winship should be retroactively applied to all cases still in the appellate process, 35 A.D.2d 806, 316 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1970). The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Winship was not to be applied retroactively, V. v. City of New York, 29 N.Y.2d 583, 324 N.Y.S.2d 313 272 N.E.2d 895 (1971).* On remand, the Appellate Division thereupon affirmed the delinquency adjudication, 37 A.D.2d 822, 324 N.Y.S.2d 934 (1971), and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal from that affirmance, 29 N.Y.2d 489, 328 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 278 N.E.2d 655 (1972). We disagree with the holding of the Court of Appeals that Winship is not to be applied retroactively.
Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971). See Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278, 280, 92 S.Ct. 916, 918, 31 L.Ed.2d 202 (1972); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 295, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 1922, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968).
Winship expressly held that the reasonable-doubt standard 'is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock 'axiomatic and elementary' principle whose 'enforcement lies at the foundation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Guerra
...Since Williams, the high court has held a new rule retroactive on this ground in three more instances. In Ivan V. v. City of New York (1972) 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659, the issue was the retroactivity of the rule of In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.......
-
People v. McDaniel
...third criterion). (Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. 293, 298, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; see also Ivan v. City of New York (1972) 407 U.S. 203, 204, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659; In re Johnson (1970) 3 Cal.3d 404, 410, 90 Cal.Rptr. 569, 475 P.2d 841.) 3 In considering the first of th......
-
Com. v. Garcia
...We believe that In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), made retroactive by Ivan V. v. New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972), mandates retroactive application of Ferreira. We emphasize, however, that we will scrutinize more carefully jury in......
-
Commonwealth v. Geschwendt
... ... 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 ... (1977); Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, ... 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972) ... ...