People v. Cardona
| Decision Date | 01 May 1975 |
| Citation | 367 N.Y.S.2d 284,48 A.D.2d 610 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Armando CARDONA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
G. M. Labush, New York City, for respondent.
N. Rosner, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and MURPHY, LUPIANO, LANE and NUNEZ, JJ.
Judgment of conviction, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered November 29, 1973, after trial to a jury, affirmed. Were there truly a question of fact concerning the relationship between the District Attorney and the informer, the hearing suggested by our dissenter might be in order. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the facts. But the facts are known; indeed, they are fully set forth in the dissent, and they indicate quite clearly that this is not a Massiah case. True it is that the informer's existence and activity became known to the prosecutor, but only after, on his own, not recruited by the District Attorney, he had received defendant-appellant's voluntary and uninvited admissions. Thereafter he reported only; he was not coached. It may well be that he was told that his cooperation would be made known to the sentencing court, but no evil is to be inferred from this circumstance. The conduct of the prosecutor was correct and circumspect, and Massiah has no application.
All concur, except MURPHY, J., who dissents in the following memorandum:
I would direct a hearing for the purpose of determining whether an agency relationship existed between the Manhattan District Attorney's office and a Tombs inmate, James Morgan, and withhold decision on the appeal pending such determination.
Defendant was convicted of killing his victim during a street argument over a girl, his sexual preference and several hundred dollars; and sentenced to twenty-five years to life imprisonment. The People's case was established by two passersby, one of whom witnessed the entire incident; and certain admissions allegedly made by defendant to Morgan. The sole question raised on this appeal is whether the statements to Morgan should have been received in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246.
The testimony below discloses that Morgan was arrested in October, 1969, indicted for robbery in the first degree and kept in the Tombs awaiting trial. During his sojourn at the aforesaid correctional institution he visited the District Attorney's office on some 8 occasions to disclose information concerning his own and other pending cases. During the summer of 1970, he twice reported the substance of conversations he had with defendant, the second more incriminating than the first.
The District Attorney's representatives were admittedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cardona
...affirmed both the order denying the motion to suppress and the resulting judgment of conviction, one Justice dissenting. (48 A.D.2d 610, 367 N.Y.S.2d 284.) The procedural posture of this case dictates an affirmance unless it can be said, as a matter of law, that the sole inference to be dra......