From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Wysokowski v. Conboy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 27, 1963
19 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

June 27, 1963

Present — Bergan, P.J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Washington County, dismissing relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus following a hearing. Relator, convicted by a jury verdict of the crime of manslaughter, first degree, seeks his release from custody on the grounds that the indictment was not legally sufficient and that illegally obtained evidence was used to secure his conviction, citing Mapp v. Ohio ( 367 U.S. 643). Relator contends that the indictment was defective in that it did not contain facts stating the acts constituting the crime, that it did not inform him as to which defendant hit, kicked and stomped the victim, and that it did not apprise him as to the specific subdivision of section 1044 of the Penal Law which was involved. The sufficiency of an indictment must be raised before judgment (e.g., People v. Parker, 8 A.D.2d 863) unless the defect complained of would strip the court of jurisdiction, and such is clearly not the case here. The simplified form of indictment here utilized has long been held to constitutionally confer jurisdiction upon the trial court of the offense charged therein (e.g., People v. Bogdanoff, 254 N.Y. 16). If relator believed the indictment insufficient or harbored any doubt as to the offense charged or his involvement therewith he could have resolved the issue by objecting to the sufficiency of the indictment prior to judgment or by the simple expediency of requesting a bill of particulars (Code Crim. Pro., § 295-g). Similarly, any defects in the arraignment procedure prior to indictment would not invalidate the indictment or conviction ( People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Close, 1 N.Y.2d 258). Relator's contention respecting the Mapp rule, even if properly raised by habeas corpus, has no merit here since the appellate process in this case was exhausted before the Mapp decision was rendered (e.g., People v. Loria, 10 N.Y.2d 368). Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Wysokowski v. Conboy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 27, 1963
19 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Wysokowski v. Conboy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THOMAS WYSOKOWSKI, Appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 27, 1963

Citations

19 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Citing Cases

U.S.A. ex Rel. Sabella v. Follette

Petitioner's wholly unexplained delay in bringing this claim to the attention of the state court would appear…

People v. Piniero

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated…