People v. Dunaway

Citation38 N.Y.2d 812,345 N.E.2d 583,382 N.Y.S.2d 40
Parties, 345 N.E.2d 583 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving Jerome DUNAWAY, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Decision Date29 December 1975
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Charles F. Crimi, Rochester, for appellant.

Jack B. Lazarus, Dist. Atty. (Edward J. Spires, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

This case has been remanded to us by the Supreme Court of the United States 'for further consideration in light of Brown v. Illinois (422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416).' (Dunaway v. New York, 422 U.S. 1053, 95 S.Ct. 2674, 45 L.Ed.2d 705.) We had previously affirmed appellant's conviction for felony murder and attempted robbery (35 N.Y.2d 741, 361 N.Y.S.2d 912, 320 N.E.2d 646).

On March 26, 1971, two men entered a pizza shop in Rochester, New York, and, in the course of an attempted robbery, one of them shot and killed the proprietor. Four months later, on August 11, 1971, three police officers went to Dunaway's home to question him about his participation in the robbery. If they had any reason for suspecting him the record does not disclose it. Finding him at a nearby house, the police, according to their own testimony, asked Dunaway 'to come downtown * * * to talk * * * about something'.

There, defendant was taken to an interrogation room where he was given warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. He then waived his right to counsel and consented to talk to the detectives. During the course of the interview, Dunaway, at the request of the officers, drew two incriminating sketches and made two inculpatory statements.

Prior to trial, a motion was made to suppress the statements and drawings on the ground that the evidence was obtained during a period of illegal detention subsequent to an illegal seizure of appellant's person without a showing of probable cause. The court ruled only that the statements were voluntarily given after proper Miranda warnings and therefore were not excludable on Miranda grounds. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision without opinion (42 A.D.2d 689, 346 N.Y.S.2d 779.)

Specifically, no findings were made as to the nature of the detention, if that it was, and, if it was, whether there was probable cause for the detention and, as the District Attorney commendably concedes, the present record is inadequate to support a determination of that question. Accordingly, this case must be remitted to the Monroe County Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Fitzgerald v. State, 5030
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 30 Octubre 1979
    ...Court for a factual hearing and such other proceedings as may be necessary to determine the issues * * *." People v. Dunaway, 38 N.Y.2d 812, 382 N.Y.S.2d 40, 345 N.E.2d 583 (1975). The finding of the trial judge in the case at bar was identical to the first holding of the trial judge in Dun......
  • Bryant v. Thomas
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 3 Agosto 2017
    ...June 2, 1976, the court, at Petitioner's request, reopened the hearing for additional testimony in light of People v. Dunaway, 38 N.Y.2d 812, 382 N.Y.S.2d 40, 345 N.E.2d 583 (1975). On June 25, 1976, the court denied Petitioner's motion to suppress. (See Chamoy Decl., Ex. 2.)b. Trial Procee......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 1985
    ......Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-2262, 45 L.Ed.2d 416; see also, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824; Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314). .         This case is virtually identical to Dunaway and Taylor. In Dunaway, the defendant made a statement within an hour of his arrival at the police station ......
  • Dunaway v. New York
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 5 Junio 1979
    ......, at 54. Three detectives located petitioner at a neighbor's house on the morning of August 11. Petitioner was taken into custody; although he was not told he was under arrest, he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. Opinion in People v. Dunaway (Monroe County Ct., Mar. 11, 1977), App. 116, 117. He was driven to police headquarters in a police car and placed in an interrogation room, where he was questioned by officers after being given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ......
  • 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