People v. Friedlander
| Decision Date | 24 November 1965 |
| Citation | 265 N.Y.S.2d 97,212 N.E.2d 533,16 N.Y.2d 248 |
| Parties | , 212 N.E.2d 533 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hazel FRIEDLANDER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Frances Kahn, New York City, for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Robert B. Sperling and H. Richard Uviller, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
In this appeal by permission, we again deal with the admissibility into evidence of a statement made by an accused not in the presence of retained counsel.
The facts establish that, pursuant to a duly issued and valid warrant, the business premises of a codefendant, Tele-A-Flash, Inc., and the apartment where this defendant, Friedlander, resided, were simultaneously searched on the afternoon of January 3, 1962, in connection with alleged book-making activities. A quantity of evidentiary material, documentary and otherwise, was seized.
On the same afternoon the defendant Friedlander was taken to the New York County District Attorney's office for questioning as to her participation. Later in the evening of the same day, the defendant's attorney appeared at the District Attorney's office and, upon request, was allowed to consult privately with his client for upwards of one-half hour by the police officer having custody of defendant. Upon the conclusion of the consultation, the attorney requested the officer to arrest and arraign his client, but received no reply. The attorney then left.
At about 1:00 a. m. that same night, the officer who had earlier granted defendant's attorney private consultation privileges interrogated the defendant in the absence of her counsel, during the course of which she admitted to the ownership of certain of the seized material. So far as the record shows, she had not been warned in advance of her rights, either as to counsel or to remain silent, nor does it appear that she requested counsel or declined to answer the questions put to her.
At the trial the inculpatory admissions thus obtained were received in evidence, over objection, against her. This was prejudicial error. The right to counsel is fundamental (Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628) and statements obtained after arraignment not in the presence of counsel are inadmissible (People v. Meyer, 11 N.Y.2d 162, 227 N.Y.S.2d 427, 182 N.E.2d 103) as are statements obtained where access has been denied (People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 199...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McQueen
...on appeal (see, for instance, People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 (1965); People v. Friedlander, 16 N.Y.2d 248, 265 N.Y.S.2d 97, 212 N.E.2d 533 (1965); People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852 (1965); People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 2......
-
People v. Blake
...559, 293 N.Y.S.2d 542, 240 N.E.2d 37; People v. Bodie, 16 N.Y.2d 275, 266 N.Y.S.2d 104, 213 N.E.2d 441; People v. Friedlander, 16 N.Y.2d 248, 265 N.Y.S.2d 97, 212 N.E.2d 533; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852; People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 84......
-
People v. Settles
...261, 262; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 231-232, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 927-929, 205 N.E.2d 852, 854-855; People v. Friedlander, 16 N.Y.2d 248, 250, 265 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98, 212 N.E.2d 533 (application of the general rule to varying factual situations); cf. People v. Blake, 35 N.Y.2d 331, 339-340......
-
Williams, In re
...378, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 207 N.E.2d 356; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852; People v. Friedlander, 16 N.Y.2d 248, 265 N.Y.S.2d 97, 212 N.E.2d 533). While all of these cases applied to confessions taken from adults after denial of access by counsel, there is no ......