People v. Blount

Decision Date23 October 1971
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Leonard BLOUNT et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York County Court

Robert W. Stieve, New York City, for defendant Robert Simmons.

Carl Vergari, Dist. Atty. (James Downes, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for the People.

DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

BRUCE G. DEAN, Acting Judge.

The People have served an amended Bill of Particulars on defendant, Robert Simmons, setting forth additional items of evidence, including plaid stamps and other proof, allegedly seized by police authorities on a prior search and seizure in Kings County, New York. It has been stipulated by the District Attorney's office that these items in the amended Bill of Particulars are the same items of evidence which were seized by the police on the prior search and seizure in Kings County, New York.

Defendant Robert Simmons is the only defendant now before this Court under Indictment No. 1060--70 which accuses him of the crimes of Robbery in the First Degree and Grand Larceny in the First Degree--allegedly committed by him on July 22, 1967, during robbery at an A & P Super Market in Yonkers, New York.

Said defendant has moved to suppress this evidence on the ground that as a result of a prior suppression hearing in Kings County, in which defendant, Robert Simmons was a party, a suppression order was made directing the suppression of the items of evidence as are now enumerated in the People's amended Bill of Particulars.

The report of the suppression hearing in the New York Law Journal supports the contention of defendant, Simmons. It apparently is not claimed by the People that any appeal was taken from the order of suppression. No decision on any such reversal is before this Court, and the order of suppression appears to be in full force and effect at this time.

Defendant has moved for suppression of this evidence alleging all possible grounds--res judicata, law of the case, collateral estoppel (and probably Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685) by reason of the order of suppression in Kings County in People of the State of New York-against-Robert Simmons, et al.

The District Attorney's office (James Downs, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Westchester County) argues that the Court is not bound by the previous order of suppression in that the Court there relied on Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, which was decided on June 23, 1969, and subsequent to the alleged crimes. It is apparently conceded that the search and seizure, held to be an illegal search and seizure under the criminal procedure standards enunciated in the Chimel case, was an illegal search and seizure as far as present standards are concerned. However, it is argued by the District Attorney that the search was proper under the standards existing at the time of the seizure of the evidence now before this Court; that the Court in Kings County in giving retroactive effect to the decision in the Chimel case, was in error and that this Court is not bound by said decision on this trial. (See United States v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 415 F.2d 1113; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199)

The motion of defendant, Robert Simmons, is granted and the items set forth in People's amended Bill of Particulars, as evidence in the case at Bar, are ordered suppressed in all respects.--Submit Order on the Record.

In arriving at this decision the Court relies in part on the principle that when a prior adjudication becomes controlling in a Court of coordinate jurisdiction, it remains controlling in that Court, and if no appeal is taken, it is conclusive as the law of the case. With no appeal, the prior order of suppression constitutes a final adjudication in favor of defendant, Robert Simmons. (People v. Minton, 54 Misc.2d 552, 556, 283 N.Y.S.2d 73, 77; Gebbie Foundation, Inc. v. Rogerson, 62 Misc.2d 944, 310 N.Y.S.2d 919, 924; Deeves v. Fabric Fire Hose Co., 19 A.D.2d 735(1), 242 N.Y.S.2d 955.

Furthermore, the People's argument on retoractive effect of the Chimel case by the Court in the prior suppression hearing, fails to recognize that as far as we are concerned here, we are giving prospective effect to the illegality of the prior search and seizure under the criminal procedural standards established in the Chimel ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • McGrath v. Gold
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 25, 1974
    ...the instant case, the County Court in Westchester County has suppressed evidence previously suppressed in Kings County (People v. Blount, 68 Misc.2d 538, 327 N.Y.S.2d 121). Accordingly, I would grant the ...

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