Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Teams, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-10-27
Citations: 18 N.Y.2d 835
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Teams, Appellant.
Judges: Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan 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.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 835–837

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Teams, Appellant.
Argued June 7, 1966;
reargued September 21, 1966;
decided October 27, 1966.
William E. Heller stem and Anthony F. Marra for appel-lapt.
Aaron E. Koota, District Attorney (William I. Siegel and Frank Di Lalla of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowits and Barry Mahoney of counsel), amicus curiae.
Leonard Rubenfeld, District Attorney (Benj. J. Jacobson, James J. Duggan and Francis J. Valentino of counsel), - for New York District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae'.
Isidore Doilinger, District Attorney of Bronx County, (Boy Broudny and Peter B. De Filippi of counsel), amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The evidence taken from the defendant at the place of his arrest was properly received in evidence (see People v. Peters, 18 N Y 2d 238; People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441; People v. Santiago, 13 N Y 2d 326, 334). The prearraignment statements made by the defendant were properly received in evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77). Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).
Judges Van VooRhis, Burke, Scileppi, Beegan 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.