People v. Cruz
| Decision Date | 09 October 1979 |
| Citation | 420 N.Y.S.2d 721,72 A.D.2d 549 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rafael CRUZ, a/k/a Marcos Vega, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bernard S. Greenbaum, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Timothy G. O'Connor, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, O'CONNOR and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 8, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress a confession.
Judgment reversed, on the law, motion to suppress granted and new trial ordered.
Appellant was arrested, without a warrant, on July 4, 1975. He was told that he was arrested "on an indictment for murder." However, although the indictment was voted on July 2, 1975, it was not filed until July 8, 1975. At the police precinct, appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, agreed to answer questions without the presence of an attorney, and subsequently confessed to the murder. Appellant now claims that his confession was inadmissible because he waived his Miranda rights without the presence of counsel, after the Grand Jury had spoken. We agree.
As a general rule," (t)he filing of an indictment constitutes the commencement of a formal judicial action against the defendant and is equated with the entry of an attorney into the proceeding" (People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 159, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 876, 385 N.E.2d 612, 613-614). "(A) criminal defendant under indictment and in custody may not waive his right to counsel unless he does so in the presence of an attorney" (People v. Settles, supra, pp. 162-163, 412 N.Y.S.2d p. 879, 385 N.E.2d p. 616; People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894).
In the instant matter, although the indictment had not been formally filed, there can be no doubt that the accusatory stage of the criminal proceeding had commenced. The police apparently believed that an indictment had been returned and arrested the appellant pursuant to such belief. Also important is the fact that appellant was told that he had been indicted for murder and there is no reason to believe that be doubted such information. Furthermore, the Grand Jury had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stringfellow
...N.Y.S.2d 579). Similarly, the voting of an indictment rather than its filing triggers certain constitutional protection (People v. Cruz, 72 A.D.2d 549, 420 N.Y.S.2d 721, lv. to app. den. 48 N.Y.2d 978 [1979] In the case at bar, the defendant's possession of scales and drug paraphernalia on ......
-
People v. Moore
...at 770, 406 N.Y.S.2d 37, 377 N.E.2d 481, rev'g on the dissent below, 55 A.D.2d at 22, 389 N.Y.S.2d 583; People v. Cruz, 72 A.D.2d 549, 549-50, 420 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2d Dept.1979); People v. Richardson, 25 A.D.2d 221, 224, 268 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dept.1966). For example, the accusatory stage, and ......
-
Rosario v. Kuhlman
...obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, suppressed the confession and ordered a new trial. People v. Cruz (2nd Dept.1979) 72 A.D.2d 549, 420 N.Y.S.2d 721. While the People were appealing petitioner's case to the New York Court of Appeals, Cruz was tried again. Cartage......
-
Rosario v. Kuhlman
...testimony that he had witnessed the crime while he was with his girlfriend, Eva Lopez, and her friend Maria. People v. Cruz, 72 A.D.2d 549, 420 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2d Dep't 1979). The second trial of Cruz commenced in April 1980, over four years after the original joint trial. Rosario could not b......