Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Pena 18 N.Y.2d 837

← Cases

People v. Pena

18 N.Y.2d 837 Court N.Y. Decision date 1966-10-27 English

Judges Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan 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. 837
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barnabel Pena, Appellant.
Submitted June 8, 1966;
decided October 27, 1966.
p. 838
Eugene Rodrigues for appellant.
Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (II. Richard Uviller and Michael R. Stack of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshoivitz and Rarry Mahoney of counsel), amicus curice.
p. 839
Leonard Bubenfeld, District Attorney (Benj. J. Jacobson, James J. Duggan and Francis J. Valentino of conns el), for New York District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae
Isidore Dollinger, District Attorney of Bronte County {Boy Broudny and Peter B. De Filippi of counsel), amicus curiae.

MemoRandum. The evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant was properly received into evidence; there was no need to disclose the informer’s identity (People v. Valentine, 17 N Y 2d 128 ; People v. White, 16 N Y 2d 270 ; People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86 ). The statements made at the scene were properly admitted into evidence (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72 , 77). Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U. S. 436 ) is not applicable to the present case (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337 , decided herewith).

Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan 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