People v. Ruiz, 249 N.E.2d 766 (NY 1969). · Go Syfert
People v. Ruiz, 249 N.E.2d 766 (NY 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Angel Ruiz, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven Earl Paul Jones, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
May 14, 1969.
249 N.E.2d 766
Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Milton Adler and Julia P. Heit for appellant in the first above-entitled action., Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Lewis R. Friedman, Michael R. Juviler and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Maria L. Marcus and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), as intervenor pro se, in the first above-entitled action., Julia P. Heit, Milton Adler and Nathan Z. Dershowitz for appellant in the second above-entitled action., Thomas J. Mackell, District Attorney (Cornelius J. O’Brien of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen Concur Judge Keating Taking No Part.
Published

Memorandum. The judgments appealed from should be affirmed. Each of these defendants was tried and adjudicated a youthful offender (Code Grim. Pro., pt. VI, tit. VII-B) prior to May 20, 1968, the date on which the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Duncan v. Louisiana (391 U. S. 145). Since the court later held that that decision was to be given only prospective application” (De Stefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631, 633), we do not reach the question whether the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution requires that the right to trial by jury be accorded to persons who are proceeded against as youthful offenders. (Cf. Code Crim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; § 913-h.)

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, B'reitel and Jasen concur; Judge Keating taking no part.

In each case: Judgment affirmed in a memorandum.