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. RICHARD DUKE (12/12/68)

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 1968.NY.43911 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 244 N.E.2d 711; 23 N.Y.2d 780 decided: December 12, 1968. 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 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: 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 third above-entitled action: Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen. Judge Scileppi and 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: Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.


In each of the first two above-entitled actions: 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,  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). 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 established to appellant was a wayward minor (Code Crim. Pro., § 913-a; People v. Allen, 22 N.Y.2d 465).

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).

19681212

© 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.