Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. Rudish
People v. Rudish, 294 N.Y. 500 (New York Court of Appeals 1945)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1945-07-19
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam. Upon this reargument we assume that the evidence against Eudish was sufficient and that as to him no error of law was committed upon the trial. Nevertheless, since the Supreme Court of the United States directed a new trial as to Malinski because one of his confessions was inadmissible, the defendant Eudish should, in the interest of justice, receive a new trial with that confession excluded. The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered- Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur; Lewis and Conway, JJ., dissent on the ground that the decision on this reargument should await the retrial of People v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Rudish. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 14 opinions
Upon this reargument we assume that the evidence against Eudish was sufficient and that as to him no error of law was committed upon the trial. Nevertheless, since the Supreme Court of the United States directed a new trial as to Malinski because one of his confessions was inadmissible, the defendant Eudish should, in the interest of justice, receive a new trial with that confession excluded.
The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered-
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur; Lewis and Conway, JJ., dissent on the ground that the decision on this reargument should await the retrial of People v. Malinski.
Judgment of conviction reversed, etc.