Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Walls 35 N.Y.2d 419

← Cases

People v. Walls

35 N.Y.2d 419 Court N.Y. Decision date 1974-11-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 419
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Walls, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gilberto Miguel Junco, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Ruggiero, Appellant.
Argued November 14, 1974;
decided November 18, 1974.
p. 420
David N. Brainin for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
I. The tangible evidence .against Walls, obtained on the search and seizure of evidence from his unlawfully arrested codefendants, must be suppressed. (Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 ; People v. Gonzalez, 31 N Y 2d 787 ; Clarke v. Ackerman, 243 App. Div. 446 ; Bunge v. C & N Truck Leasing, 69 Misc 2d 143 ; People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368 ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 ; People v. Berrios, 28 N Y 2d 361 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 .) II. Admission of Federal agent’s testimony as to codefendant’s inculpatory oral statement was reversible
p. 421
error. (People v. Rahming, 26 N Y 2d 411 ; People v. Miles, 23 N Y 2d 527 ; Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 ; Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58 ; People v. Harris, 25 N Y 2d 175 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 ; People v. Feolo, 282 N. Y. 276 ; Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U. S. 622 ; Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U. S. 232 ; People v. Anthony, 24 N Y 2d 696 .) III. Denial of defense discovery of the Federal file, to the extent of the report of a Federal agent of codefendant’s oral inculpatory statement, requires reversal. (People v. Remaley, 26 N Y 2d 427 ; People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286 ; United States v. Ott, 489 F. 2d 872 ; People v. Cefaro, 23 N Y 2d 283 ; People v. Burrelle, 21 N Y 2d 265 ; People v. La Belle, 18 N Y 2d 405 ; People v. Fisher, 249 N. Y. 419 ; People v. La Ruffa, 2 A D 2d 765 .) IV. Admission into evidence against Walls of guns seized from car in which - Ruggiero and Junco were arrested was prejudicial and reversible error. (People v. Rivera, 26 N Y 2d 304 ; People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310 , 301 N. Y. 757 ; People v. Posner, 273 N. Y. 184 ; People v. Henry, 31 A D 2d 943 ; People v. Whitfield, 3 A D 2d 768 , 4 N Y 2d 694 ; People v. Ochs, 9 A D 2d 792 ; People v. Stanard, 32 N Y 2d 143 .) V. Failure to give an ‘ ‘ accomplice ’ ’ charge to the jury, as requested, and other rulings on evidence require a new trial. (People v. Wheatman, 31 N Y 2d 12 ; People v. Swersky, 216 N. Y. 471 ; People v. Malizia, 4 A D 2d 106 , 4 N Y 2d 22 ; People v. Kress, 284 N. Y. 452 ; People v. Gordon, 32 N Y 2d 62 ; People v. Buster, 286 App. Div. 1141 ; People v. Fortes, 24 A D 2d 428 ; People v. Diaz, 19 N Y 2d 547 ; People v. Bell, 32 A D 2d 781 .) VI. Failure to furnish a free daily transcript of the trial requires a new trial. (People v. Zabrocky, 26 N Y 2d 530 ; United States ex rel. Wilson v. McMann, 408 F. 2d 896 .) VII. Prejudicial newspaper publicity requires a new trial in the interests of justice. (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 ; Matter of Oliver v. Postel, 30 N Y 2d 171 ; People v. Murphy, 42 Misc 2d 413 .) VIII. The sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and denial of due process and • equal protection. (People v. Echevarria, 25 A D 2d 505 ; People v. Colon, 20 A D 2d 854 ; People v. Molinas, 21 A D 2d 384 , 380 U. S. 907 ; Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 ; Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257 .)
p. 422
Horace P. Rowley, III for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
I. The decision that New York had legal jurisdiction over the person of Junco is prejudicial error. (Matter of Morhous v. Supreme Ct. of State of N. Y., 293 N. Y. 131 ; People ex rel. Carr v. Martin, 286 N. Y. 27 ; Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315 ; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 ; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487 ; Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91 ; Miller v. United States, 404 F. 2d 611 ; Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U. S. 128 ; Innes v. Tobin, 240 U. S. 127 .) II. The decision to admit the narcotics and weapons was prejudicial error. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 ; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487 ; People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368 ; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 ; Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 ; Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 ; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 .) Ill The decision to admit Junco’s oral statement to a Federal agent was prejudicial error. (Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 ; People v. Rahming, 26 N Y 2d 411 ; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 ; Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538 ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 .) IV. Junco’s sentence to life in prison was both illegal and unduly harsh and severe.
Daniel Markewich for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
I. Because appellant’s arrest was unlawful, the tangible evidence against him must be suppressed. (Clarke v. Ackerman, 243 App. Div. 446 ; People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; People v. Oakley, 28 N Y 2d 309 ; People v. Rahming, 26 N Y 2d 411 ; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 ; Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 ; Cook v. Sigler, 299 F. Supp. 1338 ; Bass v. State of New York, 196 Misc. 177 .) II. The sentence imposed on appellant was unconstitutional; probation must be imposed. (Hart v. Coiner, 483 F. 2d 136 ; People v. Junco, 43 A D 2d 266 .)
Richard H. Kuh, District Attorney (James Bryan and Lewis R. Friedman of counsel), for respondent.
I. The guilt of Junco and Walls was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. II. The court properly ruled that the police officers had probable cause to arrest Ruggiero and Junco and search their car incident to their arrests, and that their later failure to follow New Jer
p. 423
sey’s extradition procedure did not require suppression of the evidence seized. (People v. Gonzales, 31 N Y 2d 787 ; People v. Junco, 70 Misc 2d 73 ; People v. Ruggiero, 42 A D 2d 550 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 ; People v. Fitzpatrick, 32 N Y 2d 499 ; People v. Portelli, 15 N Y 2d 235 , 382 U. S. 1009 ; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 .) III. The court had jurisdiction to try appellants. (Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519 ; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 ; Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 ; People v. Junco, 70 Misc 2d 73 .) TV. It was not error to refuse to provide counsel for Walls with a free daily transcript of the trial. (People v. Zabrocky, 26 N Y 2d 530 ; People v. Abdullah, 23 N Y 2d 676 .) V. The weapons found in the car after the arrest of Junco and Ruggiero were admissible against Walls as direct evidence of his guilt. (People v. Luciano, 277 N. Y. 348 , 278 N. Y. 624 , 305 U. S. 620 .) VI. The prosecutor was entitled to impeach Junco’s credibility as a witness by introducing his prior inconsistent statements; Walls’ right to confrontation was not violated thereby since Junco’s statements did not directly or indirectly implicate him and Junco testified at trial. (Nelson v. O’Neil, 402 U. S. 622 ; People v. Anthony, 24 N Y 2d 696 ; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 ; People v. Lee, 27 N Y 2d 705 ; Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 ; People v. Pounds, 35 A D 2d 969 .) YII. Walls’ motion to inspect the case file of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs was properly denied. (People v. Cefaro, 23 N Y 2d 283 ; People v. Burrelle, 21 N Y 2d 265 ; People v. La Belle, 18 N Y 2d 405 .) VIII. The court properly refused to charge the jury that the Baron was an accomplice whose testimony had to be corroborated. IX. Favorable newspaper publicity about a People’s witness did not prejudice appellants. X. The sentences received by Ruggiero, Junco and Walls were legal and their alleged excessiveness does not present an issue of law to this court. (People v. Gittelson, 18 N Y 2d 427 .)

New York City police officers acting in conjunction with an undercover Federal narcotics agent approached the defendants to arrest them for possession and attempted sale of narcotics. As the defendant Walls was apprehended the other defendants, seated in a nearby car, fired upon the officers and fled toward the Hudson River. Two New York City police

p. 424
officers pursued and ultimately arrested the defendants in the Lincoln Tunnel. A contemporaneous search of the vehicle disclosed two weapons and a large quantity of illegal drugs.

Because it was later determined that they were apprehended slightly beyond New York’s jurisdiction the defendants argue that (1) New York lacked power to prosecute and (2) the evidence seized should be suppressed. Both arguments are based on the fact that the New York officers failed to comply with the New Jersey fresh pursuit statute which requires that persons arrested be promptly arraigned by a New Jersey Magistrate, followed by extradition proceedings, before being returned to the State from which they fled (N. J. Stac. 2A :155-4). We find no merit in either contention.

Although the defendants were not returned to this State in compliance with the New Jersey statute, that does not deprive the New York courts of jurisdiction (cf. Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519 ). In a proper case this State may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, rather than exploit the fruits of unauthorized conduct (see, e.g., Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 ; Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 ), but the breach involved here does not call for this sanction, particularly in view of the trial court’s factual determination that the officers acted in good faith, and did not knowingly or intentionally disregard the law.

For similar reasons we are not persuaded by the defendants’ argument that the evidence should be suppressed because it was not seized incident to an authorized arrest. This is not a case where the officers acted without probable cause or willfully neglected to complete the post arrest procedures required by New Jersey law. On the contrary when they arrested the defendants and returned them to New York they reasonably —- although mistakenly — believed they were authorized to act as-they did. Under these circumstances the arrest and incidental search were valid (cf. Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 ).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur in Per Curiam opinion.

In each case: Order affirmed.

Cases cited