People v. Taylor

Decision Date06 January 1971
Citation318 N.Y.S.2d 1,266 N.E.2d 630,27 N.Y.2d 327
Parties, 266 N.E.2d 630 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald TAYLOR and Curtis Taylor, Appellants, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Herbert S. Siegel, New York City, for Ronald Taylor, appellant.

Otto F. Fusco, New York City, for Curtis Taylor, appellant.

Burton B. Roberts, Dist. Atty. (Bennett M. Epstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

SCILEPPI, Judge.

The question raised in this appeal is whether certain inculpatory statements made by the appellants were elicited by law enforcement officials in violation of their right to counsel under prior decisions of this court.

On March 22, 1968, one Bernhard W. West was killed during a street assault and robbery in Bronx County. The police investigation of this incident was conducted by a Detective Russo who on April 10, 1968 learned that appellants Ronald and Curtis Taylor herein and a third defendant, Gail White (who is not a party to the instant appeal) had been arrested for a robbery with a Modus operandi similar to that used herein. On April 11, Russo went to the Women's House of Detention where Gail White had been incarcerated pending trial for the unrelated robbery. He informed her that he was investigating a case where a man had been 'cut and robbed' in The Bronx and advised her of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. She agreed to talk without a lawyer and made a statement implicating the appellants and herself in the West murder. Thereafter, on April 16, 1968, she was brought to the office of Assistant District Attorney Goldsmith, advised of her rights and made another statement. That same day, the appellants were taken to Mr. Goldsmith's office. Each was advised of his rights, both verbally and by signing a form after having read the same. Thereupon, both appellants gave detailed incriminating statements and were subsequently indicted for the murder of Bernhard West. In January, 1969, a pretrial Huntley hearing was conducted on appellants' motion to suppress the aforesaid statements. The court found that the Taylor brothers and Gail White had waived their rights under Miranda, but, relying on People v. Vella, 21 N.Y.2d 249, 287 N.Y.S.2d 369, 234 N.E.2d 422, suppressed all the statements because they had been assigned counsel when they were arraigned on the unrelated robbery charge. On an appeal by the People, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed (34 A.D.2d 530, 309 N.Y.S.2d 59) on the authority of our decision in People v. Stanley, 15 N.Y.2d 30, 255 N.Y.S.2d 74, 203 N.E.2d 475 and ordered that the motion to suppress be denied. The case is here on a certificate issued by an Associate Judge of this court.

Appellants argue that the trial court properly suppressed the incriminating statements and ask us to reinstate that order. We disagree. In People v. Stanley, 15 N.Y.2d 30, 255 N.Y.S.2d 74, 203 N.E.2d 475, Supra we held that though incriminating statements elicited in the absence of counsel and after the commencement of criminal proceedings by arraignment or indictment are inadmissible at a subsequent trial on charges for which the accused has been indicted or arraigned (see, e.g., People v. Di Biasi, 7 N.Y.2d 544, 200 N.Y.S.2d 21, 166 N.E.2d 825; People v. Waterman, 9 N.Y.2d 561, 216 N.Y.S.2d 70, 175 N.E.2d 445), the People are still privileged to question the accused as to unrelated crimes in the absence of counsel. As the then Judge Fuld observed (Stanley, supra, 15 N.Y.2d at pp. 32--33, 255 N.Y.S.2d at p. 76, 203 N.E.2d at p. 477); 'However, as the language of the cases makes clear, the mere fact that the defendant has been arraigned or indicted on one charge does not prevent law-enforcement officials from interrogating him, in the absence of an attorney, about another and different crime--upon which he has been neither arraigned nor indicted--or render inadmissible a confession or other inculpatory statement obtained as a result of such questioning. (See People v. Weinstein, 11 N.Y.2d 1098, 230 N.Y.S.2d 721, 184 N.E.2d 312; People v. Lathan, 12 N.Y.2d 822, 236 N.Y.S.2d 345, 187 N.E.2d 359.) The reason is clear. With regard to the second crime about which the defendant is questioned, there has not yet been 'the formal commencement of the criminal action' against him. (People v. Waterman, 9 N.Y.2d 561, 565, 216 N.Y.S.2d 70, 74, 175 N.E.2d 445, 447, Supra; see also, Richardson, Evidence (9th ed., 1964), p. 547.)' Inasmuch as in the instant case at the time of the questioning no criminal proceedings had commenced against appellants on the West murder, our postindictment-postarraignment rule does not bar the statements. Appellants, however, argue that they were rendered inadmissible under the rule as enunciated in People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628 and its progeny (see, e.g., People v. Paulin, 25 N.Y.2d 445, 306 N.Y.S.2d 929, 255 N.E.2d 164; People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 239 N.E.2d 537; People v. Vella, 21 N.Y.2d 249, 287 N.Y.S.2d 369, 234 N.E.2d 422, Supra; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852). Since appellants never requested counsel during the interrogation and in point of fact specifically waived the right to have counsel present under Miranda v. Arizona (supra), the question presented narrows down to whether the fact that the assistant district attorney knew that counsel had been assigned in another case, renders the statements inadmissible. In support of this position, appellants rely on People v. Vella (supra) where after being arraigned and assigned counsel in New York County on a charge of receiving stolen property, defendant was questioned by the State Police in Suffolk County concerning a burglary of a home in that county and theft therefrom of property involved in the New York County charge. We said (21 N.Y.2d at p. 251, 287 N.Y.S.2d at p. 370, 234 N.E.2d at p. 422) that '(s)uch interrogation, despite the defendant's waiver of his right to counsel, was impermissible. Consequently, the confession obtained from him should not have been received in evidence.' Additionally, appellant Curtis Taylor relies on People v. Arthur (Supra, 22 N.Y.2d at pp. 328--329, 292 N.Y.S.2d at p. 666, 239 N.E.2d at p. 539) where we said that 'once the police know or have been appraised of the fact that the defendant is represented by counsel or that an attorney has communicated with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant, the accused's right to counsel attaches'.

We hold that neither Vella nor Arthur mandate a reversal herein as it is our view that the Appellate Division correctly determined that the statements were admissible under People v. Stanley (supra). Firstly, we see no merit whatsoever to appellants' contention that the Stanley rule has not survived the Donovan cases (see People v. Jackson, 22 N.Y.2d 446, 293 N.Y.S.2d 265, 239 N.E.2d 869; People v. Simons, 22 N.Y.2d 533, 293 N.Y.S.2d 521, 240 N.E.2d 22; People v. Malloy, 22 N.Y.2d 559, 293 N.Y.S.2d 542, 240 N.E.2d 37). In Sta...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • State v. Derrico
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 10 de junho de 1980
    ...had been entered by the defendant's counsel in connection with the charges then under investigation. See People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 329-30, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 266 N.E.2d 630 (1971); People v. Hetherington, 27 N.Y.2d 242, 317 N.Y.S.2d 1, 265 N.E.2d 530 (1970); see also State v. McLucas, s......
  • State v. Patterson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 de dezembro de 1975
    ...1123, 95 S.Ct. 808, 42 L.Ed.2d 823 (1975); United States v. Dority, 487 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1973). See also People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 266 N.E.2d 630 (1971), which held that the New York rule that an accused, after indictment and arraignment, may not be questioned by po......
  • People v. West
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 de junho de 1993
    ...in an unrelated matter could be questioned about matters in which the suspect was not represented (see, People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 330-332, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 266 N.E.2d 630). That rule proved difficult to apply, however, where questioning on the unrepresented matter overlapped with ques......
  • People v. Bing
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 de julho de 1990
    ...to police in response to inquiries about crimes unrelated to those on which the suspect had representation (People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 330-332, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 266 N.E.2d 630; see also, People v. Ramos, 40 N.Y.2d 610, 616-617, 389 N.Y.S.2d 299, 357 N.E.2d 955; People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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