Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Cerullo and Carmine Moccio, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-10-27
Citations: 18 N.Y.2d 839
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Cerullo and Carmine Moccio, Appellants.
Judges: Judges Van Voorhis, Scideppi, Bebgan and Keating concur in Per Curiam opinion; Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith) and reaches no other question; Judge Fuld dissents and votes to reverse upon the dissenting opinion in People v. McQueen (decided herewith); Judge Burke dissents in an opinion in which Judge Fuld concurs.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 839–844

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Cerullo and Carmine Moccio, Appellants.
Argued June 9, 1966;
reargued September 21, 1966;
decided October 27, 1966.
J. Kenneth O’Connor for Vincent Cerullo, appellant.
Robert- M. T)e Poto for Carmine Moccio, appellant.
William Cahn, District Attorney (Martin I. Silberg of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowits and Barry Mahoney of counsel), amicus curice.
Leonard Bubenfeld, District Attorney (Benj. J. Jacobson, James J. Duggan and Francis J. Valentino of counsel), for New York District Attorneys Association, amicus curice.
Isidore Dollinger, District Attorney of Bronx County (Boy Broudny and Peter B. De Filippi of counsel), amicus curice.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgments of conviction herein are affirmed. Moecio's arrest as a parole violator was proper. Therefore, his statements were properly received into evidence (cf. People v. Robinson, 13 N Y 2d 296). The failure to hold a voir dire on the voluntariness of Cerullo's confession was not error because such a procedure was not required at the time of trial herein. There was no fatal prejudice arising out of the joint trial (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).
The cases relied on in the dissent herein (People v. Barbato, 254 N. Y. 170; People v. Valletutti, 297 N. Y. 226) contained proof of objectively verifiable injuries, not equivocal evidence of subjective complaints of pain by the defendants.
It is fundamental that, in a noncapital case, the weight of the evidence is not for our review, and this court will not disturb findings of fact which are based on conflicting testimony (People v. Lobel, 298 N. Y. 243, 251). The only question before us is whether, as a matter of law, the record does not support the holding that the confession was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be voluntary (N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 3, subd. a). In our analysis of this issue, we must, because of the Appellate Division's affirmance, view the facts in a light most favorable to the People's case (People v. Monaco, 14 N Y 2d 43, 45). Thus circumscribed by our jurisdiction, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that, considering the evidence adduced at the trial and at the hearing the confessions were involuntary.
Although both defendants raised objections to the admission of certain statements because they had not been advised of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent, these objections were properly overruled (People v. Gunner, 15 N Y 2d 226). Since defendants were tried before June of 1966, Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436) is not applicable to these cases (People v. McQueen, 18 N Y 2d 337, decided herewith).