Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Williams 37 N.Y.2d 206

← Cases

People v. Williams

37 N.Y.2d 206 Court N.Y. Decision date 1975-06-24 English

Contents

Majority

p. 206
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Williams, Appellant.
Argued June 9, 1975;
decided June 24, 1975
p. 207
Zenaida Drabkin and Jesse Siskind for appellant.
I. The court on a pretrial hearing, in sustaining the objections by the People to questions propounded by defendant’s attorney to the complaining witness, which questions asked for the address of two witnesses to the alleged crime constituted reversible error; and the District Attorney’s failure to reveal the addresses also requires a reversal. (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; People v Bottom, 76 Misc 2d 525 ; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554 .) II. The search of defendant’s apartment, made without a warrant, without consent and not as an incident to a lawful arrest was illegal, and evidence of imitation gun should have been suppressed. (People v Loria, 10 NY2d 368 ; Accarino v United States, 179 F2d 456 ; People v Cokley, 42 AD2d 538 .) III. The pretrial identification of defendant by the victim of the crime could under the circumstances not be reliable, was unfair, suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. (United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ; Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600 ; Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 .)
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Robert M. Moll of counsel), for respondent.
I. The hearing court properly sustained the People’s objection to defendant’s cross-examination of Miss Vegas that sought to elicit the home address of her two nieces. (People v Bottom, 76 Misc 2d 525 ; Moore v Illinois, 408 US 786 ; People v Fein, 18 NY2d 162 , 385 US 649 ; People v Stridiron, 33 NY2d 287 .) II. The denial of defendant’s motion to suppress is not grounds for reversal. (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 ; United States ex rel. Rogers v Warden of Attica Prison, 381 F2d 209 ; McMann v Richardson, 397 US 759 ; People v Iglesias, 40 AD2d 778 ; Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; Harris v United States, 390 US 234 ; Ker v California, 374 US 23 ; People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77 ; People v Brosnan, 32 NY2d 254 ; United States v Sheard, 473 F2d 139 , 412 US 943 ; United States v Thweatt, 433 F2d 1226 .) III. The lower court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress complainant’s pretrial and in-court idéntifications. (Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293 ; People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184 , 396 US 1020 ; United States ex rel. Phipps v Follette, 428 F2d 912 ; Simmons v United States, 390 US 377 ; People v Zabrocky, 26 NY2d 530 ; Stewart v United States, 418 F2d 1110 ; People v Gonzalez, 27
p. 208
NY2d 53 , 400 US 996 ; People v Rahming, 26 NY2d 411 ; People v Damon, 24 NY2d 256 ; People v Rivera, 22 NY2d 453 , 395 US 964 .)

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division, reversed, the plea of guilty and judgment of conviction vacated, the motion insofar as it sought to suppress physical evidence granted, and the action remitted to Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings. Defendant was arrested and handcuffed in the hallway adjoining the door of his apartment, or immediately inside the door in the foyer. The police, without a warrant, proceeded nevertheless to search defendant’s living room and bedroom seeking the stolen television set. The television set was not found, but in the bedroom the police found an imitation pistol similar to that used in the robbery lying in "plain view” in a partially-open dresser drawer. The search was not conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant, or incidental to the completed arrest outside the searched premises, or with defendant’s consent. Thus, the physical evidence seized should be suppressed because it was the product of an illegal search, although the arrest was proper (see Agnello v United States, 269 US 20 , 33; Chimel v California, 395 US 752 , 763; cf. People v Loria, 10 NY2d 368 , 373-374).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, plea of guilty and judgment of conviction vacated, motion insofar as it sought to suppress physical evidence granted, and case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cases cited