People v. Frank

• Decision Date: 06 December 1966
• Citation: 52 Misc.2d 266,275 N.Y.S.2d 570
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Anita FRANK, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 570

275 N.Y.S.2d 570

52 Misc.2d 266

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Anita FRANK, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Part XXX.

Dec. 6, 1966.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Henry Dogen, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for the People.

Rosen, Lotwin, Kantrowitz, Goldman & Gutin, New York City (Lester Rosen, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

EDWARD R. DUDLEY, Justice.

Application for a preliminary hearing seeking the suppression of certain statements as being involuntarily obtained (Code Crim.Proc. §§ 813--f to 813--h).

Under the circumstances of this case, counsel for both sides have stipulated that the court shall decide a threshold question: Is defendant herein entitled to a hearing, as a matter of law, under the decision of People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179, to contest the voluntariness of certain statements reputedly made by her, and even if the statements were not coerced is she entitled also to a hearing pursuant to the rules as found in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, to establish that she was not warned of her constitutional rights prior to making such statements.

Upon the oral argument of this motion counsel for defendant contended that, as an employee of a local department store, she was detained by a security guard of the store due to suspicion of theft and questioned by six security guards, wherein certain statements were made involuntarily and without benefit of any warning concerning her constitutional rights. Counsel concedes that these 'security guards' are not police officers but urges that these guards have the same right of detention and interrogation as a policeman and consequently should be under the same duty to warn a suspect, citing the General Business Law, section 218. The prosecution argues that as the police had no part in this case except to arrest defendant and remove her to the local precinct, none of the prohibitions regarding admissibility of oral statements made by a suspect should apply.

There can be no doubt that any statements made by the accused, whether to the police or to a private person, are admissible in evidence so long as they are determined to be voluntary and not the product of coercion (Code Crim.Pro. § 395). It has always been the rule that the "* * * true test of admissibility is that the confession is made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any sort" (Haynes v. State of Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 513, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1343 10 L.Ed.2d 513). Therefore, inasmuch as defendant is now objecting to the use of these alleged statements at trial (cf. People v. Terry, 16 N.Y.2d 731, 262 N.Y.S.2d 111, 209 N.E.2d 727) the trial court is obliged to grant a preliminary hearing (Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908) on the issue of voluntariness, no matter to whom these statements were made (People v. Harden, 17 N.Y.2d 470, 266 N.Y.S.2d 978, 214 N.E.2d 159.)

We note that although the prosecution gave defendant written notice of its intention to use certain statements at trial (Code Crim.Pro. § 813--f) the prosecution contends that this statute was enacted in response to the decision in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, which had reference to admissions made to the police. Hence, the People argue that inasmuch as there is no specific statute governing statements to private persons, that the defendant may not have a pre-trial hearing but is relegated to her objection being made at trial when the statements are offered in evidence. The Court rejects this interpretation of the statute as nothing contained therein restricts its application to only statements obtained by the police. Moreover, if defendant is entitled to a hearing at all, it would seem more orderly procedure, and...