People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff of New York Cnty.

Citation199 N.E. 415,269 N.Y. 291
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. MOONEY v. SHERIFF OF NEW YORK COUNTY.
Decision Date07 January 1936
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Habeas corpus proceeding by the People, on the relation of Martin Mooney, against the Sheriff of New York County. From an order of the Appellate Division (245 App.Div. 97, 280 N.Y.S. 904), affirming an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, the relator appeals.

Order affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

James D. C. Murray and Daniel Kirchman, both of New York City, for appellant.

William Copeland Dodge, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Felix C. Benvenga and A. A. De Vito, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

HUBBS, Judge.

The appellant, a reporter on the New York American, was called as a witness before the grand jury of the county of New York, which was investigating alleged violations of the provisions of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40, §§ 970-997, 1370-1386) relating to gambling and lottery. He refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the source of his information, obtained as a newspaper reporter, was confidential and privileged. Appellant had written articles upon that subject for his paper in which he had stated that in spite of the investigations being conducted by the grand jury ‘the policy racket’ was still going on. He admitted before the grand jury that he wrote the articles stating that they were based on ‘contacts' made by him. He was asked to give the name and address of the persons and places mentioned in the articles. He refused to do so and was adjudged guilty of contempt of court in General Sessions and committed. He procured a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed and the order dismissing it was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether a newspaper reporter may lawfully refuse to answer pertinent questions relating to communications made to him as a reporter on the ground that such communications are privileged.

There is no statute in this state covering the subject. It is urged by appellant that the basis for the privilege granted in the cases where it is conceded to be properly granted exists in the case of a reporter. Attention is called to the fact that in addition to the statutory privileges existing between attorney and client, husband and wife, physician and patient, and certain others (Civil Practice Act, §§ 353, 349, 351, 352), there also exist certain common-law cases where the privilege is granted, like communications made to a judge, to a district attorney, and to police officers in the performance of their duties, and it is urged that the principle underlying the granting of those privileges exists in the case of a reporter. Appellant admits that no court has ever so decided, but urges that the development of the law and changes in social relations require that courts now extend the privilege to a reporter.

The opinion in the case of People ex rel. Phelps v. Fancher, 2 Hun, 226, 4 Thomp. & C. 467, stated that the editor of a newspaper while a witness before a grand jury was not privileged from disclosing the name of the author of a libelous article published in his paper. A decision of the question here involved was not, however, necessary to the decision of that case. The conclusion there reached has been reached by the courts of every state which has passed upon the subject. There are no decisions to the contrary at the present time which have not been overruled although there were early decisions in England which decided in accordance with appellant's contention. Such decisions have been overruled in England and the rule there is now the same as in this country.

5 Wigmore on Evidence (p. 1) contains a discussion on the subject of privileged communications. Section 2286 reads: ‘In general, then, the mere fact that a communication was made in express confidence, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Branzburg v. Hayes In the Matter of Paul Pappas, Petitioner. United States, Petitioner, v. Earl Caldwell. &#8212 85, 70 8212 94, 70 8212 57
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1972
    ......Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, New York City, and William Bennett Turner, San Francisco, ...235, 85 A. 1011 (1913); People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff, 269 N.Y. 291, 199 N.E. ......
  • United States v. Onassis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 30, 1955
    ...courts have declined to recognize such testimonial privilege except as required by statute. People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff of New York County, 1936, 269 N.Y. 291, 199 N.E. 415, 102 A.L.R. 769; People v. Keating, App.Div., 1st Dept., 141 N.Y.S.2d 562. As to partnerships there is no such do......
  • Appeal of Goodfader
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • November 3, 1961
    ...no evidentiary privilege in favor of a newsman are: Clein v. State, Fla.1950, 52 So.2d 117, 120; People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff of New York County, 269 N.Y. 291, 199 N.E. 415, 102 A.L.R. 769; Pledger v. State, 77 Ga. 242, 3 S.E. 320, 322; Plunkett v. Hamilton, 136 Ga. 72, 70 S.E. 781, 785......
  • Pappas, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 29, 1971
    ...State (Fla.), 52 So.2d 117, 120--121; In re Goodfader's Appeal, 45 Haw. 317, 322--344, 367 P.2d 472; People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff of N. Y. County, 269 N.Y. 291, 293--295, 199 N.E. 415; State v. Buchanan, 250 Or. 244, 247--249, 436 P.2d 729. See also Taylor & Selby Appeals, 412 Pa. 32, 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Practice Commentary To Judiciary Law Article 19
    • United States
    • Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal No. I-1, May 2003
    • May 1, 2003
    ...ß 215.70 (McKinney 1999). [90] See O'Neil v. Oakgrove Construction, Inc., 523 N.E.2d 277 (1988). [91] People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff, 269 N.Y. 291, 295 [92] See Gonzales et al v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 155 F.3d 618 (2d Cir.1998). [93] Id. [94] See O'Neil, 523 N.E.2d at 279. [95] See Cook v. Un......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT