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. ANGEL RUIZ (05/14/69)

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 1969.NY.41527 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 249 N.E.2d 766; 24 N.Y.2d 926 decided: May 14, 1969. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.ANGEL RUIZ, APPELLANT; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V. STEVEN EARL PAUL JONES, APPELLANT People v. Ruiz, 30 A.D.2d 1050, affirmed. Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Milton Adler and Julia P. Heit for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Lewis R. Friedman, Michael R. Juviler and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Maria L. Marcus and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), as intervenor pro se, in the first above-entitled action. Julia P. Heit, Milton Adler and Nathan Z. Dershowitz for appellant in the second above-entitled action. Thomas J. Mackell, District Attorney (Cornelius J. O'Brien of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur; Judge Keating taking no part.


People v. Ruiz, Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur; Judge Keating taking no part.

 Memorandum. The judgments appealed from should be affirmed. Each of these defendants was tried and adjudicated a youthful offender (Code Crim. Pro., pt. VI, tit. VII-B) prior to May 20, 1968, the date on which the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Duncan v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 145). Since the court later held that that decision was to be given "only prospective application" (De Stefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 633), we do not reach the question whether the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution requires that the right to trial by jury be accorded to persons who are proceeded against as youthful offenders. (Cf. Code Crim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; § 913-h.)

Disposition

In each case: Judgment affirmed in a memorandum.

19690514

© 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.