People v. Abbatiello

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ABRAHAM N. GELLER
• Citation: People v. Abbatiello, 259 N.Y.S.2d 203, 46 Misc.2d 148 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
• Decision Date: 26 February 1965
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Dominick ABBATIELLO, Defendant.

Page 203

259 N.Y.S.2d 203

46 Misc.2d 148

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Dominick ABBATIELLO, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Part XXX.

Feb. 26, 1965.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., by Alexander Herman and Robert J. Lehner, Asst. Dist. Attys., for the People.

Michael S. Washor, Brooklyn, for defendant.

ABRAHAM N. GELLER, Justice.

Defendant's motion with respect to an inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment for alleged insufficiency of evidence to support the charge is denied. The court has read the minutes and finds that sufficient evidence was submitted to the grand jury to warrant the indictment.

The branch of the motion seeking a bill of particulars is disposed of as hereinafter indicated.

[Matter pertaining to items 1-5, 7 and 9-13 omitted.]

The principal issue is item 6 requesting copies of the statements allegedly made by defendant to the arresting officer and to the District Attorney.

That issue has been raised time and again over the years. A reappraisal of the principles and considerations underlying its resolution is required in the light of recent decisions of our highest court affirming and protecting the rights of accuseds, the expanding concept of liberalizing pretrial procedures 'to advance the function of a trial to ascertain truth' (Rios v. Donovan, 21 A.D.2d 409, at p. 411, 250 N.Y.S.2d 818, at p. 820) and the impact of the new procedure for a Jackson-Denno hearing before trial on the voluntariness of a confession (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 [January 7, 1965]).

Although the question of constitutional due process may not be involved in the procedural issue relating to pretrial disclosure of an accused's confession (see Cicenia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504, 510-511, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523), there can be no question as to the ever-increasing concern of our courts with the problem of incriminating statements obtained during a period of detention by the police and the matter of protecting the rights of an accusexd who has allegedly made an incriminating statement under such circumstances.

There has also been in recent years a general trend toward enlargement of pretrial disclosure to aid in the ascertainment of truth. Even though the Supreme Court in Cicenia determined that no constitutional issue was involved, it did state that it was the 'better practice' to grant pretrial disclosure of a confession. With respect to civil actions it is now provided by CPLR 3101(e) that a party may obtain a copy of his own statement as a matter of right without the necessity of showing special circumstances, as was formerly required under decisional law.

In 1960, dealing with this problem of pretrial discovery of a written confession or admission, I stated in People v. Stokes, 24 Misc.2d 755, 760, 204 N.Y.S.2d 827, 833: 'It is likely, and perhaps inevitable, that the presently evolving practice of liberal discovery in criminal cases may ultimately lead to the automatic granting of discovery of a defendant's written statement in the absence of as whowing of prejudice to the People.' It was pointed out, citing numerous authorities, that a generalized showing of alleged prejudice to the People based on fear of perjury resulting from early disclosure of confessions was exaggerated and unsubstantial. However, the decision noted that, in view of the then state of the law on the subject, the court was 'not disposed to go so far at this point in the development of pretrial discovery in criminal cases' (p. 762, 204 N.Y.S.2d p. 835) as to automactically...