Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN W. HOCKING, Appellant.

Per Curiam.

The fact that the police refused a request by the defendant's father to see and speak with the defendant during the period he was being questioned by the police at the station house, while not in and of itself sufficient reason or basis for excluding the defendant's confession, may, of course, upon the hearing which we are directing, be considered, along with all the other circumstances of the interrogation, in passing upon the voluntariness of the defendant's statements.

The judgment should be modified to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant's confession or other inculpatory statements introduced as part of the People's case at the trial and, as so modified, affirmed. The case should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Erie County, for such a hearing. (See People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72.)

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI and BERGAN concur.

Judgment modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. HOCKING
(Apr 15, 1965)