Majority
Headnote
1. Indictment and Information (§ 144*)—Motion to Dismiss Grounds.The presence of the defendant before the grand jury returning the indictments here under consideration was compulsory. Pursuant to the command of a subpoena, he appeared as a wit
“By Mr. Train: You understand, if you give any testimoney here, it may be used against you hereafter; that you do not have to testify unless you wish to do so; that you do not have to answer any question the answer of which may tend to degrade or incriminate you; and, if you testify, you must waive any privileges the law gives to you in that regard. Do you wish to give any testimony? A. Yes.’’
The statement and question and their purposes were plain and readily understandable, and the answer short and positive in form.
The questions thereupon and thereafter put to defendant and his answers related to various matters of fact essentially material and relevant to the commission of the several alleged crimes of forgery and of his connection therewith, of all of which crimes he was subsequently charged with the commission by the indictments here in question.
[ 1 ] Though the matter in which he was sworn as a witness was stated to be “the case of the People against John Doe,” it is apparent, in my opinion, from the questions put and the statements made by the then Deputy Attorney General to the defendant here, that the defendant was the only person against whom the forgery inquiry then pending was in fact directed. The Deputy Attorney General now in charge has in his affidavit verified April 4, 1911, stated that he “has made a very careful, systematic and painstaking examination of” the minutes of the grand jury finding and returning such indictments, and “that, in regard to the various forgery indictments against said Frank H. Burke, deponent has been unable to find any evidence in said grand jury minutes, or in the record of said grand jury as presented to deponent, that in any way connect said Frank H. Burke with the commission of said forgeries, except the evidence given by Prank H. Burke, the defendant, bef.ore said grand jury.” The defendant claims that his constitutional rights have been infringed and violated, and moves that the indictments be dismissed.
It is the constitutional right of every man that he shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself in any criminal case; and it is also his absolute right that he shall not be put upon his trial for an infamous crime until he shall have been first legally charged therewith by indictment or presentment of a grand jury. But a party may waive his constitutional rights. He may waive any of the constitutional provisions designed for his protection (People v. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 83 , 89; Jackson v. Rowe, 106 App. Div. 65 , 72, 94 N. Y. Supp. 568 ); and
[2] Statements and testimony of an accused, if voluntarily made and given, “with a full understanding of his situation and an exact comprehension of his rights” (People v. Kennedy, 159 N. Y. 346 , 361, 54 N. E. 51 , 70 Am. St. Rep. 557 ), whether in a judicial proceeding or not, are admissible against him and the converse of this proposition is necessarily the law, if such statements were made under duress and coercion. Duress and coercion are likewise questions of fact, not to be determined upon a motion for the relief here sought.
Motion denied.
Cases cited
- People v. Quigg 59 N. Y. 83 at 89 p. 123
- People v. Kennedy 159 N. Y. 346 at 361, 54 p. 124