New York Court of Appeals, 1968

People v. Wright

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 18, 1968

21 N.Y.2d 1011; 238 N.E.2d 330; 290 N.Y.S.2d 930; 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1422

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Barrow (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
People v. McCray (Harold) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. McCray (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Ptah (New York Supreme Court 1990)
People v. Knights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Brewster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Armioia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Grover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
People v. Murchinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
People v. Balsano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Vinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgments reversed and a new trial ordered in the following memorandum: It was error, as the Appellate Division decision states, to allow proof by the victim of selection by him of two photographs from a number of photographs from police files (People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70) and proof by a detective that complainant had made these selections (People v. Caserta, 19 N Y 2d 18; People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471) and to utilize this proof in summation. There was a resulting inference the photographs in police files were those of defendants. In the context of this record reception of the proof was prejudicial.

Defendant Cicatelli was entitled to full inquiry into the voluntary nature of his purported confession even though he denied having made any confession. The court, although restricting proof of defendant’s physical condition, submitted the voluntary nature of the confession to the jury but refused to determine this issue independently. Even though in some circumstances it may be proper not to determine the question *1013(People v. Stigler, 9 N Y 2d 717, 719), the determination of the facts separately by court and jury should be co-extensive and in view of defendant’s proof should also have been decided by the court.

The force and fear established, although fitting closely into the pattern of extortion, could be regarded by the jury as robbery (see People v. Bodkin, 304 Ill. 124 [1922]; Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82 [1922]; State v. Bell, 228 N. C. 659 [1948]). But in arguable circumstances the question should be decided by the jury.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.