People v. Lanza
| Citation | 9 N.Y.2d 895,216 N.Y.S.2d 706,175 N.E.2d 833 |
| Parties | , 175 N.E.2d 833 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry LANZA, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1961 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 10 A.D.2d 315, 199 N.Y.S.2d 598.
The defendant was convicted under Section 1330 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, of 19 crimes of refusing to testify before a legislative committee. The Court of General Sessions, New York County, Mullen, J., rendered a judgment imposing 10 consecutive sentences of one year each and nine concurrent sentences of one year each, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division, McNally, J., modified the judgment by directing that the sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively, and held that where the legislative committee engaged in investigation of matters including detection and prevention of corrupt practices offered the defendant immunity from prosecution for matters he might testify to, his refusal to answer, though made on the advice of counsel, and though grounded on privilege against self-incrimination, justified conviction for refusing to testify, but sentences were excessive in the light of the circumstances and the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motions were made in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal and for enlargement of time.
The Court of Appeals, 9 N.Y.2d 715, 214 N.Y.S.2d 334, denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and granted the motion for enlargement of time.
Judgment modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed. The Appellate Division having directed that the penitentiary sentences run concurrently and not consecutively and, as so modified, having affirmed the judgment of the Court of General Sessions, we direct that the judgment be further modified by finding defendant guilty of but one crime (People v. Riela, 7 N.Y.2d 571, 200 N.Y.S.2d 43). It is clear from the determination of the Appellate Division that the number of crimes of which the defendant was found guilty did not enter into the duration of the sentence imposed.
All concur except DESMOND, C. J., and DYE and FULD, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that in view of the situation disclosed in Lanza v. New York State Joint Legis. Comm., 3 N.Y.2d 92, 164 N.Y.S.2d 9, the questions which defendant refused to answer were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanza v. State of New York
...... Page 142 . that New York therefore denied him due process of law by convicting him for refusing to answer the committee's questions. 6 . The Fourth Amendment specifically insures the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,' by federal officers. We may take it as settled that the Fourteenth Amendment gives to the people like protection against the conduct of the officials of any State. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 ......
-
Com. v. Dougherty
......57) are unaffected by the Mapp and Silverman cases. We discern no basis for referring to the Fifth Amendment. Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 50-54, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903; Olmstead case, supra, 277 U.S. p. 462, 48 S.Ct. p. 567 ('There was no * * * ... See People of State of New York v. Lanza, 10 A.D.2d 315, 199 N.Y.S.2d 598, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 895, 216 N.Y.S.2d 706, 175 N.E.2d 833; 10 N.Y.2d 748, 219 N.Y.S.2d 603, 177 N.E.2d 46; cert. granted ......
-
People v. De Salvo
......at 702, 85 S.Ct. at 1251. See also Matter of Finn's Liquor Shop v. State Liquor Authority, 24 N.Y.2d 647, 301 N.Y.S.2d 584, 249 N.E.2d 440 (1969). In 1962, the Supreme Court had before it the identical constitutional question presented in the instant case. Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962). However, the Court decided the case on other grounds, and did not squarely come to grips with the issue. Nevertheless, the Court's opinion did give some indication, in dicta, of how it would have decided the question at that time, ......
- Gallin v. Stafford