| NY | Nov 22, 1966
As a result of a notorious juvenile gang conflict in July of 1957, Michael Farmer was stabbed to death on tbe grounds of Higbbridge Park, in tbe Washington Heights area of northern Manhattan. In 1958 tbe two appellants were convicted therefor of murder in. tbe second degree. After these convictions were affirmed by tbe Appellate Division (19 A D 2d 80), tbe Court of Appeals remitted tbe case to tbe trial court for a Huntley inquiry into tbe voluntariness of defendants’ confessions (15 N Y 2d 722). Horton and Alvarez now appeal both from tbe affirmance of their original convictions and from tbe affirmance of tbe finding of voluntariness in the subsequent Huntley hearing (25 A D 2d 720). We are presented with no convincing reasons to upset either of these determinations.
Without reiterating all the facts of this well-known crime, we dismiss as groundless Horton’s contention that bis conviction is not factually supported in the trial record. While there might not have been sufficient evidence to prove premeditation on the part of. either defendant, an element which is unnecessary for second degree murder, there certainly was enough evidence for the jury to have found the requisite intent to kill, existence of which can be inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused. (McKenna v. People, 81 N.Y. 360" court="NY" date_filed="1880-06-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mckenna-v--the-people-3580496?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3580496">81 N. Y. 360 [1880].) the evidence that appears in the record of the stabbings by the two defendants is amply sufficient for the jury to have concluded that each of them took part in this fatal attack with the design to effect the death of their victim. (People v. Monaco, 14 N Y 2d 43 [1964].)
In claiming that be has been denied a fair and impartial trial, Alvarez contends that there was a deliberate and systematic exclusion of persons of Puerto Bican origin in the selection of the special jury panel. His claim is founded solely upon the showing that at the time of bis trial some 13.4% of the population of New York County was of Puerto Bican origin, and only
As to the Huntley determination that the defendants’ confessions were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, it is now suggested that, after the case has been pending in our courts for over eight years, it be again remitted for a second Huntley inquiry due to some offhand remarks published in a book co-authored by the Trial Judge and due to a technical error regarding the admissibility of evidence which in no way resulted in prejudice to the accused. Such a remission would constitute a needless protraction of a criminal proceeding already unduly delayed and in effect would thwart, rather than aid, the expedient administration of justice.
At the outset it must be noted that the presiding Judge at the Huntley hearing, the same Judge who had conducted the original trial, properly understood the function of such a hearing, a fact indicated by his determination: “On all the facts presented on the trial, and on the supplementary [Huntley] hearing, the Court finds that the confessions of Horton and Alvarez were freely and voluntarily made. They were not the product of threats, beatings or coercion of any kind, either by the police or by the Assistant District Attorney.”
It is alleged, however, that a reversal is dictated for the reason that the Judge refused to consider evidence that the authorities failed to advise the defendants of their rights to counsel and to remain silent. That this ruling constituted error is unquestionable, since such facts are relevant to the issue of
Finally, it is argued that a new Huntley hearing is required because of the failure of the hearing Judge to disqualify himself. It appears that, subsequent to the termination of the trial of the defendants and their five codefendants in 1958 (two of whom were convicted of second degree manslaughter and three of whom were acquitted), the Trial Judge co-authored a book describing the celebrated trial (Davidson and Gehman, The Jury Is Still Out [Harper & Bros., 1959]). Appellants allege that in preparing this publication the Judge obtained posttrial information concerning the voluntariness of the defendants’ confessions (citing pp. 96, 148 and 167), and that he, therefore, abused his discretion as a matter of law in failing to disqualify himself from presiding at the Huntley hearing. Nowhere is it argued that this information was false or even true but prejudicial. Rather, the singular basis for appellants’ motion to disqualify was that it was unsworn “testimony” acquired in
In accordance with the tenor of Davis v. North Carolina (384 U. S. 737, supra [1966]), from a close scrutiny of the entire record as presented on this appeal, we conclude, as did the courts below, that neither of the confessions involved herein was the product of a “ will overborne. ’ ’
The judgments of conviction, and the orders of the Appellate Division affirming the determination of the Huntley hearing, should be affirmed.
Judgments, as amended, affirmed.