People v. Pena 18 N.Y.2d 837

18 N.Y.2d 837

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barnabel Pena, Appellant.

Submitted June 8, 1966;

decided October 27, 1966.

*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.

*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.

People v. Pena
18 N.Y.2d 837

Case Details

Name
People v. Pena
Decision Date
Oct 27, 1966
Citations

18 N.Y.2d 837

Jurisdiction
New York
Court
New York Court of Appeals

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!