Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PEOPLE STATE NEW YORK v. OLIN HILL (05/16/68)

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 1968.NY.41680 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 238 N.E.2d 913; 22 N.Y.2d 686 decided: May 16, 1968. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.OLIN HILL, JR., AND MAURICE KESSLER, APPELLANTS People v. Hill, 28 A.D.2d 959, modified. People v. Kessler, 28 A.D.2d 959, modified. Myron Beldock for Olin Hill, Jr., appellant. Joseph B. Hirschfield for Maurice Kessler, appellant. Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney (James J. Duggan of counsel), for respondent. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm.


People v. Hill, Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm.

 Memorandum. The "show-up" procedure employed by the police was highly suggestive and improper (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293; People v. Ahmed, 20 N.Y.2d 958; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v. Brown, 20 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244). This does not mean, however, that Miss Milligan's and Mrs. Horrocks' testimony identifying the defendants should necessarily be excluded. The case should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing where the People must prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that the witnesses' in-court identification was not tainted by the improper show-up (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240; People v. Ahmed, supra ; People v. Ballott, supra). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendants and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgments appealed from should be modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification and, as so modified, affirmed.

Disposition

Judgments modified in accordance with the memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

19680516

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.