Opinion · Nylaw New York
PEOPLE v. PECK, 35 A.D.2d 609 [3d Dept 1970]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N.Y., Respondent, v. ROGER EZRA PECK,Appellant., 35 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. 1970)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1970-07-08
- Topic
- general
PEOPLE v. PECK, 35 A.D.2d 609 [3d Dept 1970] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROGER EZRA PECK,Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. July 8, 1970 SWEENEY, J. Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the County Court of Delaware County, entered March 10, 1969, on a jury verdict of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. PECK, 35 A.D.2d 609 [3d Dept 1970]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PEOPLE v. PECK,35 A.D.2d 609[3d Dept 1970]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROGER EZRA PECK,
Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
SWEENEY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the County Court of Delaware County, entered March 10, 1969, on a juryPage 610verdict of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree. Defendant and three others were jointly indicted for robbery in the first degree. The defendant and one other were separately tried and found guilty. A third was tried as a youthful offender, and the fourth, Jack Parsons, testified on behalf of the People in each case. Defendant, on this appeal, contends that his confession was not voluntarily given; that Parsons gave perjured testimony; and that the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit in any of these contentions. It is true that there was some conflict as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking of defendant's confession. We note that the trial court did not make specific findings in regard to each issue in theHuntleyhearing as it should have done. However, the record of theHuntleyhearing establishes that the Trial Judge fully and independently resolved the issues against the accused and under such circumstances it was proper to submit the issue to the trial jury as to voluntariness. Although the testimony of Parsons as to an incident that occurred at the bar during the time of the alleged robbery differed from that of other witnesses, we cannot conclude that the testimony was perjured. It was up to the jury to weigh this testimony. Finally, there was ample evidence in this record to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P.J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.