Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Teams 18 N.Y.2d 835

← Cases

People v. Teams

18 N.Y.2d 835 Court N.Y. Decision date 1966-10-27 English

Judges Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan and Keating concur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith) and reach no other question.

Contents

Majority

p. 835
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Teams, Appellant.
Argued June 7, 1966;
reargued September 21, 1966;
decided October 27, 1966.
p. 836
William E. Heller stem and Anthony F. Marra for appel-lapt.
Aaron E. Koota, District Attorney (William I. Siegel and Frank Di Lalla of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowits and Barry Mahoney of counsel), amicus curiae.
Leonard Rubenfeld, District Attorney (Benj. J. Jacobson, James J. Duggan and Francis J. Valentino of counsel), - for New York District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae'.
Isidore Doilinger, District Attorney of Bronx County, (Boy Broudny and Peter B. De Filippi of counsel), amicus curiae.
p. 837
Memorandum. The evidence taken from the defendant at the place of his arrest was properly received in evidence (see People v. Peters, 18 N Y 2d 238 ; People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441 ; People v. Santiago, 13 N Y 2d 326 , 334). The prearraignment statements made by the defendant were properly received in evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162 ; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72 , 77). Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U. S. 436 ) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337 , decided herewith).

Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan and Keating concur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fuld dissent and vote to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen ( 18 N Y 2d 337 , decided herewith) and reach no other question.

Upon reargument: Judgment affirmed in a Memorandum.

Cases cited