People v. Kaye

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: JASEN; SCILEPPI, BERGAN and BREITEL, JJ., concur with JASEN; FULD, C.J., and BURKE
• Citation: 303 N.Y.S.2d 41,250 N.E.2d 329,25 N.Y.2d 139
• Decision Date: 02 July 1969
• Parties: , 250 N.E.2d 329 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marvin KAYE, Appellant.

Page 41

303 N.Y.S.2d 41 25 N.Y.2d 139, 250 N.E.2d 329 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Marvin KAYE, Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York. July 2, 1969.

Page 42

Gerald Zuckerman, New York City, for appellant.

[25 N.Y.2d 140] Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Lewis R. Friedman and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

JASEN, Judge.

This case presents the issue of whether spontaneous statements made, to the police by a defendant who has been advised of his constitutional rights are rendered inadmissible solely because the defendant is in custody and represented by counsel who is not present when the statement is volunteered.

As the result of a telephone call received from defendant's attorney, two detectives went to the Stratford Arms Hotel at 117 West 70th Street in Manhattan shortly after midnight on [25 N.Y.2d 141] July 6, 1965. There they discovered the body of a 13-year-old boy in defendant's room. Death had been caused by strangulation.

The detectives then proceeded to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan where defendant's attorney and his father surrendered defendant to the officers. Defendant's attorney informed Detective McNally that he had counselled defendant concerning his constitutional rights, and had advised

Page 43

defendant not to make any statements. Detective[250 N.E.2d 330] McNally then inquired if the attorney desired to accompany defendant to the police station. After receiving assurances that his client would not be mistreated, defendant's attorney 'stated that he did not think it was necessary; that it was getting late and he would see (Detective McNally) in court in the morning.'

After informing defendant that he was being arrested 'for the homicide of the boy that we found in the bed in 117 West 70th Street', the detectives placed him into their car to drive to the police station. Almost immediately after entering the car and without being asked a single question, defendant blurted out, 'It's all a mistake, but I know he forgave me. He's in heaven now. It didn't have to happen. I'm sorry I ever met him in the village.' The defendant repeated this statement several times and then began to discuss meeting the deceased. At this time Detective McNally informed defendant, 'You know, you don't have to make any statements. Your lawyer has already apprised you of that fact.' Defendant replied, 'I have nothing to hide. It was all a mistake. I know I'm forgiven. I want to tell my side of the story, and I want to leave it up to the courts and doctors to decide.' At the time defendant made this statement, the detectives had just started their car and defendant's attorney was standing within 30 feet of the police car.

Detective McNally then said to defendant, 'If you don't mind telling us the story, why don't you tell us from the beginning.' Defendant then related how he choked and beat the deceased 13-year-old boy to death. Following the death of the boy, defendant remained with the body for two days. Defendant then called his attorney, and was taken by his attorney to Bellevue Hospital where he was arrested.

[25 N.Y.2d 142] Detective McNally informed defendant three or four times during relation of the confession that defendant was entitled to the assistance of counsel and did not have to speak to the police. However, defendant insisted upon talking, replying, 'I want to tell you everything.' Defendant spontaneously repeated the confession five or six times. The only questions the detectives asked defendant during his narrative related to the times and dates of events which he had previously described.

After arriving at the 20th Precinct Station House, defendant was readvised of his constitutional rights, questioned, and amplified the confession previously given to the detectives in the police car.

A Huntley hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of defendant's confessions. The confession obtained from defendant after interrogation at the police station was suppressed because the police were aware that defendant was represented by counsel and questioned him in the absence of his attorney. However, the hearing Judge found

Page 44

that the earlier oral confession made by defendant in the police car was 'a spontaneous reiteration of the facts impelled, probably, by his wanting to unburden his conscience', was not induced by any questioning and was volunteered after he had been advised of his constitutional rights.

During the Voir dire examination of the jury, defendant was permitted to withdraw his plea of not guilty to a charge of first degree murder and allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from 10 to 15 years.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed defendant's conviction (31 A.D.2d 536, 295 N.Y.S.2d 81) upon the ground that his confession was admissible as 'a wholly voluntary statement not the product of questioning', citing People v. Torres, 21 N.Y.2d 49, 54, 55, 286...