People v. Failla
| Decision Date | 30 April 1964 |
| Parties | , 199 N.E.2d 366 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene John FAILLA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Nathan Kestnbaum, New York City, for appellant.
Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty. (James J. Duggan, Tuckahoe, of counsel), for respondent.
Upon basic constitutional principles, it was laid down in People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628 (1963) that a confession taken by police from a person accused of crime after counsel had been denied access to him was inadmissible on the trial. The case now before us comes within the rule announced in Donovan; and, although there are some differences between them, the difference do not distinguish the cases.
Appellant has been convicted of murder, second degree, in Westchester County Court. He was arrested October 7, 1960 shortly after 1 o'clock in the morning. He was taken first to a hospital where a gastric lavage was administered upon a report that he had swallowed a number of 'Sonambul' sleeping tablets. The stomach washings contained no drug.
Following this procedure and while he was in police custody, an incriminating statement was taken from defendant by an Assistant District Attorney at Westchester County Parkway Police Headquarters. The record shows the taking in question and answer form of this statement began at 2:58 A.M., continued to 4:12 A.M., when it was briefly interrupted, and then continued to 4:45 A.M., when it was concluded.
The statement is described in the People's brief as 'a complete and voluntary confession of the murder of Kathryn Levy which was recorded stenographically'. A further statement was taken from defendant by police at the scene of the crime at 7:00 A.M. and there was an additional tape-recorded statement taken by the police at 8:00 A.M. Defendant was arraigned in court on the same morning at 10:00 A.M.
An attorney who had acted for defendant in a prior civil case was called by defendant's father. The lawyer testified that at about 3:00 A.M. he arrived at the place he was asked to go, Troop K State Police Barracks, which was near but not at the same place as Westchester County Parkway Police Headquarters, where defendant was being held.
At the State Police barracks, the lawyer was told that defendant had taken some drugs and could not then be seen; but if he waited he could see defendant. After a wait of 10 minutes the lawyer drove to the Parkway Police headquarters to which he was directed. He testified he arrived there between 3:15 and 3:30. He identified himself and asked to see the defendant. This was refused, was requested again, and again was refused. Troop K of the State Police is on the Taconic State Parkway, and the Westchester Parkway Police Headquarters is on Saw Mill River Parkway; but both are at Hawthorne.
The record thus shows that at 3 o'clock, just about the time when the taking of defendant's statement began at the Parkway headquarters, his lawyer arrived at the State Police barracks, where officials had sufficient knowledge of the defendant's location to advise the attorney to wait because of defendant's physical condition, and then to advise him further where defendant could be found.
The People would distinguish Donovan by suggesting that by the time the attorney reached the actual place of detention of the defendant, the confession had proceeded to the point that it should be admissible notwithstanding the fact counsel was refused access to the defendant by police. This becomes the main legal issue in the case.
Although a lieutenant of the Parkway Police testified that the attorney reached the Parkway headquarters at about 3:30 A.M., which is consistent with the lawyer's own testimony, the People argue from some other rather inferential testimony that it must have been about 4 o'clock when he arrived there.
Noting that the taking of the statement began at 2:58 A.M., the People argue that it must have proceeded before the lawyer came to a point at which 'appellant was entirely committed to his confession that he had strangled Cathy Levy'.
If there had been an interference with the right to counsel within the Donovan rule, it would be wholly impracticable to dissect a confession into parts to be deemed admissible before counsel arrived and was refused access to the accused, and parts to be deemed inadmissible after he arrived.
Such fragmentation would lead to marked confusion in police investigations and to uncertainty in the admissibility of evidence on criminal trials. The collateral issue would frequently arise as to exactly when counsel arrived and was refused admission, and how damaging a confession had become at just that moment. Subtleties as delicate as these would be equally unworkable as a rule governing police action and as a rule of evidence.
A pragmatic and much simpler test, which would at once satisfy the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McQueen
... ... Gunner, supra, 15 N.Y.2d p. 234, 257 N.Y.S.2d p. 930, 205 N.E.2d p. 856; People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 390, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 410, 207 N.E.2d 356, 357; People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 183, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 271, 199 N.E.2d 366, 369). I confess to occasional difficulty in conforming my own views with those of the Supreme Court, in this area of the law; and now that I have found a decision of that tribunal to which I can easily accommodate, I am unwilling to take ... ...
-
People v. Beshany
... ... State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, decided June 22, 1964; People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628; People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 199 N.E.2d 366; People v. Gunner, 21 A.D.2d 900, 251 N.Y.S.2d 1001.) ... [43 Misc.2d 533] I have not overlooked the defendants' contention that the order of October 10, 1963 is void because it authorized interception beyond the two-month period ... ...
-
People v. Hobson
... ... Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 328, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 665, 239 N.E.2d 537, 538, Supra; People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 180, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 268, 199 N.E.2d 366, 367; People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 151, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 842, 193 N.E.2d 628, 629; Richardson, Evidence (10th ed.), § 545, at p. 546). Indeed, the rule resisted narrow classification of defendants entitled to its protection; it is ... ...
-
People v. Lopez
...of the indelible right to counsel are defined “through the adoption of ‘pragmatic and ... simple[ ] test[s]’ ( People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 181, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 199 N.E.2d 366 [1964] ) grounded on ‘common sense and fairness' ( People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d at 339, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.......