People v. Farley
| Decision Date | 01 May 1986 |
| Citation | 501 N.Y.S.2d 497,120 A.D.2d 761 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger W. FARLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Norberta Fuller Krupczak, Amsterdam, for appellant.
Guy P. Tomlinson, Dist. Atty., Mary Dawn Herkenham, Amsterdam, for respondent.
Before MAIN, J.P., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (White, J.), rendered November 9, 1982, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.
On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether it was error for County Court not to suppress incriminating statements made by defendant and his accomplice while they were incarcerated and which were overheard by a fellow prison inmate. Defendant and Wendell Gloskey allegedly engaged in a series of criminal activities in the early morning hours of June 27, 1981 in the Town of Minden, Montgomery County. * Before their rampage had ended, they had, among other things, shot three people, two of whom died as a result of the injuries inflicted. Defendant and Gloskey then stole a car and left the State. Later that day, however, they turned themselves in to police in Virginia where they subsequently made numerous incriminating statements. Some of the statements made by defendant, however, were later suppressed since they were made after he had requested the assistance of counsel.
Defendant and Gloskey were eventually returned to Montgomery County. Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, two counts of murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and robbery in the first degree. Defendant and Gloskey were held in Montgomery County Jail pending trial.
While in Montgomery County Jail, James L. De Witt, a fellow inmate, overheard defendant and Gloskey discussing their criminal activities of June 27, 1981. De Witt, who was incarcerated for parole violations, had previously given information to State Police which had resulted in numerous indictments. De Witt gave a statement to a Deputy Sheriff regarding the information he had learned.
Defendant subsequently moved to suppress this evidence. However, County Court found that there was no agency relationship between De Witt and law enforcement officers at the time he heard the statements in question. De Witt was thus allowed to testify at defendant's trial as to the incriminating conversation which he had overheard between defendant and Gloskey. Defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Snickles
... ... Halstead, 180 A.D.2d 818, 580 N.Y.S.2d 413, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 904, 588 N.Y.S.2d 829, 602 N.E.2d 237; People v. Blake, 127 A.D.2d 602, 511 N.Y.S.2d 401, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 1001, 517 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 511 N.E.2d 93; People v. Farley, 120 A.D.2d 761, 501 N.Y.S.2d 497) ... Defendant's contentions on the issue of suppression are equally unavailing. Defendant contends that his statements to the police should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel. The testimony of ... ...
-
People v. Abdullah
... ... Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d 333, 392 N.Y.S.2d 606, 360 N.E.2d 1306; People v. Ross, 122 A.D.2d 538, 504 N.Y.S.2d 903, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 816, 507 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 499 N.E.2d 883; People v. Farley, 120 A.D.2d 761, 501 N.Y.S.2d 497) ... Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon the inmate's reference during his trial testimony to a newspaper story which stated that the defendant had confessed to the ... ...
-
People v. Bent
... ... Defendant concedes he was required to show that the authorities were more than passive recipients of information (see, People v. Farley, 120 A.D.2d 761, 501 N.Y.S.2d 497), but he claims that a hearing was required since it was "unusual" for convicted inmates, such as the two witnesses, to be placed in the same tier as pretrial detainees. Noticeably absent, however, is any proof that the government was actively involved in, or ... ...
-
People v. Gates
... ... The prosecution was the passive recipient of information. Simply stated, the informer was not an agent of the government (see, People v. Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 392 N.Y.S.2d 606, 360 N.E.2d 1306; People v. Farley, 120 A.D.2d 761, 501 N.Y.S.2d 497), but rather an individual acting privately (see, People v. Velasquez, 68 N.Y.2d 533, 510 N.Y.S.2d 833, 503 N.E.2d 481). We agree with the determination by County Court that the inculpatory statements made by defendant while in jail to Argyle did not require ... ...