Opinion · Nylaw New York

PEOPLE v. STOVALL, 13 N.Y.2d 1178 (1964)

248 N.Y.S.2d 56

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1964-01-23
Topic
general

PEOPLE v. STOVALL, 13 N.Y.2d 1178 (1964) 248 N.Y.S.2d 56, 197 N.E.2d 543 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THEODORE R. STOVALL,Appellant.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Submitted January 20, 1964 Decided January 23, 1964 Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended (1) that his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States were violated in that appellant was compelled to testify against himself after arraignment; and (2) that he was convicted on evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that such unlawful search and seizure deprived him of his constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. STOVALL, 13 N.Y.2d 1178 (1964). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PEOPLEv.STOVALL,13 N.Y.2d 1178(1964)
248 N.Y.S.2d 56,197 N.E.2d 543
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,v.THEODORE R. STOVALL,
Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Submitted January 20, 1964
Decided January 23, 1964
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended (1) that his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States were violated in that appellant was compelled to testify against himself after arraignment; and (2) that he was convicted on evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that such unlawful search and seizure deprived him of his constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that appellant's constitutional rights had not been violated.