People v. Gates

Citation319 N.Y.S.2d 569,36 A.D.2d 761
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Arthur Richard GATES, Appellant.
Decision Date22 March 1971
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MUNDER, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a Coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Rockland County, entered December 30, 1969, which denied the application without a hearing.

Order affirmed.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree in 1967. The judgment was affirmed on appeal (People v. Gates, 29 A.D.2d 843, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 666, 301 N.Y.S.2d 597, 249 N.E.2d 450). He now seeks to vacate that conviction on the ground that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the admission of certain fingerprint evidence at his trial, which evidence was allegedly the product of an illegal arrest (see Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676).

Appellant never raised his Fourth Amendment claim in the trial court--either by motion to suppress or objection upon the trial to receipt of the evidence. Rather, it was first asserted in the Court of Appeals, which did not pass upon its merits because the issue had not been preserved for appellate review and the record was naturally barren of any evidence relating directly to the legality of the arrest (People v. Gates 24 N.Y.2d 666, 670, 301 N.Y.S.2d 597, 600, 249 N.E.2d 450, 452, Supra). However, in a footnote to its opinion, the Court of Appeals added that it was not then determining whether appellant would be entitled to a post-conviction hearing on the factual circumstances attending his arrest (Ibid., n. 6). Thus, we are now presented with the instant proceeding for Coram nobis relief.

In our view, appellant is precluded from raising the issue as to the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence in this Coram nobis proceeding. He has forfeited that right by failing to raise the constitutional question in the trial court and then to test any adverse ruling on appeal from the judgment (see People v. De Mino, 35 A.D.2d 979, 317 N.Y.S.2d 929; People v. Howard, 12 N.Y.2d 65, 236 N.Y.S.2d 39, 187 N.E.2d 113, cert. den. 374 U.S. 840, 83 S.Ct. 1893, 10 L.Ed.2d 1060; cf. Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 227 n. 8, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227; United States ex rel. Tarallo v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 433 F.2d 4; People v. Friola, 11 N.Y.2d 157, 227 N.Y.S.2d 423, 182 N.E.2d 100).

That the defendant in People v. Morales, 22 N.Y.2d 55, 290 N.Y.S.2d 898, 238 N.E.2d 307, revd. 396 U.S. 102, 90 S.Ct. 291, 24 L.Ed.2d 299, may have secured a hearing on a Fourth Amendment claim (that certain confessions constituted the fruits of an illegal detention), despite the absence of objection in the trial court, does not help appellant at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Quartararo v. Mantello
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 19, 1989
    ...to timely object would be deemed to constitute a procedural forfeiture of the right to assert the issue, see People v. Gates, 36 A.D.2d 761, 319 N.Y.S. 2d 569 (2d Dep't 1971); Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830, 836 n. 2 (2d Cir.1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1038, 98 S.Ct. 775, 54 L......
  • Gates v. Henderson
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 16, 1978
    ...error coram nobis which was denied. People v. Gates, 61 Misc.2d 250, 305 N.Y.S.2d 583 (Rockland County Ct. 1969), aff'd, 36 A.D.2d 761, 319 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2d Dep't 1971), motion for leave to appeal denied (1972). II In August 1973 Gates filed a habeas corpus petition in the Southern District......
  • People v. Roache
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 19, 1984
    ...is not properly before us at this juncture (cf. People v. Mishkin, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 229 N.E.2d 454; People v. Gates, 36 A.D.2d 761, 319 N.Y.S.2d 569). We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without ...

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