Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Duke 23 N.Y.2d 780

← Cases

People v. Duke

23 N.Y.2d 780 Court N.Y. Decision date 1968-12-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 780
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Duke, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carmen Vargas, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clarence Acker, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Moses Martinez, Appellant.
Argued October 17, 1968;
decided December 12, 1968.
p. 781
Leon B. Polsky and Anthony F. Marra for all appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Peter F. Schwindt and Michael R. Juviler of counsel), for respondent in first above-entitled action.
Elliott Golden, Acting District Attorney (Raymond J. Scanlan and Harry Brodbar of counsel), for respondent in second, third and fourth above-entitled actions.

In each of the first two above-entitled actions: Judgment reversed and the complaint dismissed on the ground the record does not establish appellant is a wayward minor (Code Crim. Pro., § 913-a; People v. Allen, 22 N Y 2d 465 ).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen. Judge Soileppi dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication (see dissenting opn. in People v. Allen, 22 N Y 2d 465 , 473).

p. 782
In the third above-entitled action: Judgment reversed and the complaint dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new proceeding addressed to defendant’s present status. The record does not establish appellant was a wayward minor (Code Grim. Pro., § 913-a; People v. Allen, 22 N Y 2d 465 ).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen. Judge Scileppi dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication (see dissenting opn. in People v. Allen, 22 N Y 2d 465 , 473).

In the fourth above-entitled action: Judgment modified by remitting the proceeding to Criminal Court to determine defendant’s present condition and need for remedial treatment and, as so modified, affirmed. It is nearly two years since the order of commitment to the New York City Reformatory was made. The determination that defendant was a wayward minor is sustained by the record now before us (People v. Salisbury, 18 N Y 2d 899 ).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Cases cited