Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Burd, Defendant, and John W. Hocking, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-10-27
Citations: 18 N.Y.2d 832
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Burd, Defendant, and John W. Hocking, Appellant.
Judges: Judges Van Vookhis, Soileppi, Bergan and Keating concur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond dissents in an opinion in which Judge Burke concurs only as to denial of appellant’s right to the assistance of counsel; Judge Fuld dissents solely on the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (18 N Y 2d 337), decided herewith.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 832–834

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Burd, Defendant, and John W. Hocking, Appellant.
Argued March 31, 1966;
reargued September 21, 1966;
decided October 27, 1966.
Robert Schaus for appellant.
Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney (Arthur C. Baumeister of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowits and Barry Mahoney of counsel), amicus curiae.
Leonard Bub enfold, District Attorney (Benj. J. Jacobson, James J. Duggan and Francis J. Valentino of counsel), for New .York District Attorneys Association, amicus curia.
Isidore Dollinger, District Attorney of Bronx County (Boy Broudny and Peter B. De Filippi of counsel), amicus curia.

Opinion:
MemoRandum. The record fully substantiates the finding that the appellant's confession was voluntary. We said, in our earlier decision in this case (People v. Hocking, 15 N Y 2d 973), that certain facts alluded to in the dissent herein (e.g., the age of the appellant; the appearance of appellant's father at the station house) were to be considered on the limited issue of vol-untariness. In People v. Taylor (16 N Y 2d 1038) we reiterated that denial of access to the defendant's family was germane, but in no wise controlling on the question of voluntariness. Nothing in the present case requires, as the dissent seems to suggest, that we abandon our position in Hocking and Taylor and accept, on this appeal from the Huntley hearing, arguments rejected in the main appeal. This case was tried long before June of 1966. The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).