People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 26 November 1975 |
| Citation | 380 N.Y.S.2d 476,86 Misc.2d 339 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Jo-Anne BROWN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for plaintiff.
Robert Rivers, Westbury, for defendant.
The defendant moved to suppress statements which she asserts were involuntarily made. (CPL 710.20 (subd. 3)). The defendant alleged no External duress in support of her motion, but relies instead upon Internal subjective pressures. Her position makes the determination here one of first impression in this state. To resolve the question a hearing was held and an initial oral decision was rendered on November 3, 1975. The following are the Court's formal findings and conclusions required by statute. (CPL 710.60 (subd. 5)).
On September 30, 1974 the body of Burr Hollister was found on the floor of the office he occupied as law secretary to Justice Bertram Harnett of the New York State Supreme Court. He had been shot in the head. When Justice Harnett learned of the death he informed the defendant, Jo-Anne Brown. She and her children had resided with the deceased. Shortly thereafter the defendant arrived at the Supreme Court building looking nervous and smoking excessively. During a private conversation with Justice Harnett she spoke calmly and clearly although her thoughts seemed disjointed to Justice Harnett. The defendant also spoke to Detective Rauff and Police Officer Fran Galasso.
Though not under arrest, the defendant was escorted to police headquarters where she was advised of her rights in compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. She was aware that an attorney had been retained for her, but she had not yet spoken with him. Nevertheless, the defendant refused to answer police questions asserting that she had been advised not to talk to the police. She did talk with Officer Galasso and discussed in general terms her relationship with the deceased. Her conduct appeared rational and she was alert, polite and cooperative to a degree. Her conversation was coherent and she appeared to understand what was occurring.
The defendant's attorney eventually arrived at police headquarters and they conferred. The defendant then consented to answer questions and gave a detailed account to Detective Rauff of her activities on the previous day. A 'Q & A' was also obtained. (People's Exhibit #15). Her conduct appeared normal. She was attentive and responsive both to the questions posed and to the advice of counsel.
After the questioning the defendant returned home. Shortly after her arrival she was met there by Assistant District Attorney Grennan, Detective Sergeant Dempsey and Detective Rauff. They had come to pick up certain items which the defendant had agreed to surrender to them. She pointed out a rifle which they took and she handed Detective Rauff a piece of paper and said, 'This is the note that Burr left me.' She identified other markings on the paper which had not been made by the deceased and turned over certain apparel belonging to Hollister.
The defendant's psychologist, Dr. Elaine Dinitz, called her and suggested a meeting. The defendant had been consulting therapists for some years. Most recently she had been treated by Dr. Ifill, a psychiatrist. Dr. Ifill found the defendant to be agitated and to have trouble sleeping and prescribed the tranquilizer, valium. 1 The defendant had last seen Dr. Ifill on August 20, 1974. She met with Dr. Dinitz on October 2nd and recounted the events of September 29th and 30th. Dr. Dinitz found her narration coherent.
The police wished to fingerprint the defendant. Although she consented with the advice of counsel when approached on October 3rd, the defendant indicated that she thought it unnecessary. Nevertheless, she went to police headquarters and was fingerprinted on October 4th. Though apparently annoyed, the defendant seemed alert, responsive and cooperative.
Four days later the police executed a warrant authorizing the search of defendant's residence for certain specified items. After consulting counsel the defendant advised the police that she would supervise the search and insure that they did not go beyond the scope of the warrant. She did in fact supervise the search and cautioned her children not to let the police look where they were not permitted to do so by the warrant. To Officer Galasso who was present the defendant appeared to be more in control and composed than she had been on the 30th of September.
On October the 10th the defendant reported that her home had been burglarized. She claimed that two address books had been taken and that feces had been left on her living room floor. Scientific analysis was unable to ascertain whether the waste was human or animal. (The defendant did have a pet dog).
That same day the defendant met with Dr. Dinitz. In prior testimony Dr. Dinitz stated that it was upon this occasion that the defendant brought with her a paper bag which she claimed contained feces. During the suppression hearing Dr. Dinitz testified that the bag incident occurred at the October 2nd meeting. October 10th would seem the more likely date. In any event, the defendant told Dr. Dinitz that there was feces all over her living room; that 'people' were following her at work carrying mops and cleaning the floor behind her and that physicians were examining the feces of her patients seeking bullets which she was suspected of having fed them. Dr. Dinitz testified that the defendant was then suffering from an acute schizophrenic episode, but the Court does not adopt this conclusion.
The defendant wrote the following letter dated October 21st:
'Dear Laverne & Letitia, Joretta
Mommy has done a wrong thing, but yet it was the only thing to do. I took Burr life--I believe you all know that--maybe that is why you girls and other people acted in the way they did.
I know you don't understand this, but one day you will. The newspapers are going to be very nasty and tell lies on mommy--plus the friends I thought I had or we had will lie also. Hold your head high. Burr knew I was going to take his life and believe it or not--that is what he wanted--he was very depressed about something which I will never know about. He could have stopped me, because it was a small gun but his last words were quote 'Go ahead and kill me--Maybe I should not have listen, but I did. Pray for Mom & Burr--I do not believe it was another woman--I believe he used us for a personal experience and after he finished--he wanted to walk out but--I hope you are I always will be good and honest. I hope I will be able to see you all--I love you all and always remember I loved Burr to although I killed him.
Mommy'
On October 22nd the defendant confessed to the murder of Burr Hollister. First she went to the office of her new counsel, Robert Rivers. The defendant had dismissed the attorney obtained for her by Justice Harnett believing that the attorney, who had been a friend of the deceased, along with Justice Harnett and the then Democratic candidate for District Attorney belonged to the office the defendant talked with and was observed by Mr. Corbin, an investigator. She was again smoking heavily and appeared agitated. She claimed that 'people' were threatening her children and herself. She was concerned because her children were consistently being sent home from school due to illness although they would leave home feeling well. Of Burr Hollister's murder the defendant said, 'I must have done it.'
At approximately 5:40 P.M. the defendant, together with Attorney Rivers and Mr. Corbin, met with Chiefs Curran and Owens at police headquarters. Mr. Rivers informed the chiefs that the defendant had something she wished to say with regard to the murder of Burr Hollister. The defendant then said, 'I killed Burr Hollister.' Attorney Rivers answered almost all the questions asked. The defendant expressed a desire to answer a question about her motives, but, after private consultation with counsel, she remained silent. During the questioning the defendant was under no physical restraint and seemed composed, alert and interested. After an Assistant District Attorney informed her of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, she professed to understand the cautions. Basically the same questions were then repeated. Asked how she had killed Burr Hollister, the defendant responded and described how she had been sitting in a chair alongside the desk behind which the deceased sat; how she stood up, pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger; how the deceased turned, spread his arms and fell out of the chair onto his left side.
Officer Galasso had the opportunity to observe the defendant at police headquarters after her confession. She found the defendant to be comparatively nervous similar to her condition on September 30th and unlike her composed state on October 8th. Still the defendant was in control. She did not cry and was able to talk and react while Officer Galasso obtained from her the information required for the arrest card. (People's exhibit #6). The defendant told Officer Galasso that she had makeup, cigarettes, curlers and a toothbrush in her pocketbook and wished to know what she would be able to retain in her detention cell. She also had occasion to answer questions asked of her by Desk Sergeant Busch relative to her physical condition.
The defendant was arraigned in District Court on the following day. As she was being escorted from the court she stated to reporters, As she entered the sheriff's car with Matron Ruth Gibson and Officer Michael Semoch, the defendant said, Some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glover
...police custody, external pressure or coercion. United States v. Bernett, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 495 F.2d 943 (1974); People v. Brown, 86 Misc.2d 339, 380 N.Y.S.2d 476 (1975) (and cases cited therein). However, we reject this view as incorrect and destructive of the very purposes of requiring......
-
People v. Alaire
...had twice been found competent to stand trial (see, Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242; People v. Brown, 86 Misc.2d 339, 380 N.Y.S.2d 476). Furthermore, a psychiatrist called by the defendant at the suppression hearing opined that this statement, made to Fentor ......
-
People v. Roucchio
...interrogation occurred which resulted in the admission. (Accord, People v. Russo, 92 Misc.2d 858, 401 N.Y.S.2d 428; People v. Brown, 86 Misc.2d 339, 380 N.Y.S.2d 476.) Even before Meyer it had been the rule that a post-arraignment interrogation of an accused, which takes place in the absenc......
-
People v. Eubanks
...N.E.2d 709; People v. Roucchio, 70 A.D.2d 322, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1006; People v. Brooks, 103 Misc.2d 294, 425 N.Y.S.2d 951; People v. Brown, 86 Misc.2d 339, 380 N.Y.S.2d 476). Certainly, the spontaneously volunteered offer of restitution was not the result of inducement, provocation or any overr......