People v. McCartney

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtGABRIELLI; BREITEL; COOKE
Citation345 N.E.2d 326,381 N.Y.S.2d 855,38 N.Y.2d 618
Decision Date24 February 1976
Parties, 345 N.E.2d 326 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Merle Eugene McCARTNEY, Appellant.

Page 855

381 N.Y.S.2d 855
38 N.Y.2d 618, 345 N.E.2d 326
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Merle Eugene McCARTNEY, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 24, 1976.

Page 856

James F. Young, Elmira, for appellant.

D. Bruce Crew, III, Dist. Atty., for respondent.

GABRIELLI, Judge.

This case concerns the construction and application of CPL 640.10 (subd. 3), the 'UNIFORM ACT TO SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES FROM WITHOUT THE STATE IN CRIMIN CASES.' 1 We have not previously had occasion to construe and apply this statute which has now been enacted by some 47 States and the District of Columbia. The 'Uniform Act' enables a State to secure the attendance of witnesses who are not located within its borders and are, hence, immune to its normal subpoena power. Defendant contends that he was denied the right to secure compulsory attendance of witnesses on his behalf, given to him by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and held applicable to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17--19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019; and he asserts that this right has been violated because the Judge at his pretrial confession suppression hearing refused to utilize the procedures set forth in the 'Uniform Act' to compel a Maryland State trooper to testify at the hearing.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law, § 160.10) after the court determined, following a hearing, that statements made to New York State Police investigators at the Washington County Jail in Hagerstown, Maryland, were voluntarily made upon a waiver of his right to admonitions before interrogation. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction. At the suppression hearing, the prosecution produced Investigator Anderson of the New York State Police, who had conducted the interrogation of defendant; another New York State Police officer who was also present during defendant's interrogation, Senior Investigator Capozzi, although available to the defendant, was not called upon to testify, but his testimony at a suppression hearing for defendant's brother arising out of the same charge was made available to the defendant. Defendant's counsel then sought to compel the attendance of a Maryland State trooper, Officer Miles, who was alleged to have been present during the defendant's questioning in the Maryland jail. The Judge found th Trooper Miles' testimony would not be 'of any determinative value to this proceeding', since he did not participate in the questioning of defendant but was merely 'in and out' of the room in which defendant was being held, and denied the application for a certificate pursuant to CPL 640.10 (subd. 3).

It should be noted, prefatorily, that a State is not constitutionally required by the Sixth Amendment guarantee of compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses beyond its jurisdiction over whom it has no subpoena power. 2 Thus, while the constitutionality of the 'Uniform Act' has been upheld (New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 79 S.Ct. 564, 3 L.Ed.2d 585), the 'Act' is clearly not constitutionally mandatory (see

Page 857

People v. Carter, 37 N.Y.2d 234, 240, 371 N.Y.S.2d 905, 910, 333 N.E.2d 177, 181; People v. Cavanaugh, 69 Cal.2d 262, 70 Cal.Rptr. 438, 444 P.2d 110; State v. Blount, 200 Or. 35, 264 P.2d 419; State v. Smith, 87 N.J.Super. 98, 208 A.2d 171). The 'Uniform Act' has been sustained against the claim that, by requiring the Judge to pass upon the issue of a witness' materiality, it constitutes a violation of due process and a denial of a fair trial (Glynn v. Donnelly, D.C., 360 F.Supp. 214, petition den., 1 Cir., 485 F.2d 692, cert. den., 416 U.S. 957, 94 S.Ct. 1970, 40 L.Ed.2d 307). It is important to note, therefore, that we are not here faced with a question of constitutional dimension but, rather, one of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Com. v. Watkins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 20, 1978
    ...395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2139, 23 L.Ed.2d 768, rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 42, 24 L.Ed.2d 127 (1969); People v. McCartney, 38 N.Y.2d 618, 621-623, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855, 345 N.E.2d 326 (1976). Section 13B of G.L. c. 233 provides in pertinent part: "If a person in any state which by it......
  • State v. Bennett, SC 18862
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 14, 2017
    ...v. Closterman , 687 S.W.2d 613, 620 (Mo. App. 1985) ; State v. Smith , 87 N.J.Super. 98, 102, 208 A.2d 171 (1965) ; People v. McCartney , 38 N.Y.2d 618, 621, 345 N.E.2d 326, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855 (1976) ; State v. Blount , 200 Or. 35, 50, 264 P.2d 419 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct.......
  • Henry v. Hamilton Equities, Inc., No. 72
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2019
    ...), the Hamilton defendants "could properly be expected to assume certain obligations with respect to the safety of others" ( Putnam, 38 N.Y.2d at 618, 381 N.Y.S.2d 848, 345 N.E.2d 319, citing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 357, Comment b ; Gallagher v. St. Raymond's R.C. Church, 21 N.Y.2d ......
  • U.S. v. Ismaili, No. 86-5552
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 25, 1987
    ...court, the "compulsory process" clause guarantees the defendant the right to take their depositions. Contra, e.g., People v. McCartney, 38 N.Y.2d 618, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855, 856-57, 345 N.E.2d 326, 328 (1976) (no constitutional requirement under sixth amendment to compel the attendance of witnes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Com. v. Watkins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 20, 1978
    ...395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2139, 23 L.Ed.2d 768, rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 42, 24 L.Ed.2d 127 (1969); People v. McCartney, 38 N.Y.2d 618, 621-623, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855, 345 N.E.2d 326 (1976). Section 13B of G.L. c. 233 provides in pertinent part: "If a person in any state which by it......
  • State v. Bennett, SC 18862
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 14, 2017
    ...v. Closterman , 687 S.W.2d 613, 620 (Mo. App. 1985) ; State v. Smith , 87 N.J.Super. 98, 102, 208 A.2d 171 (1965) ; People v. McCartney , 38 N.Y.2d 618, 621, 345 N.E.2d 326, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855 (1976) ; State v. Blount , 200 Or. 35, 50, 264 P.2d 419 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct.......
  • Henry v. Hamilton Equities, Inc., No. 72
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2019
    ...), the Hamilton defendants "could properly be expected to assume certain obligations with respect to the safety of others" ( Putnam, 38 N.Y.2d at 618, 381 N.Y.S.2d 848, 345 N.E.2d 319, citing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 357, Comment b ; Gallagher v. St. Raymond's R.C. Church, 21 N.Y.2d ......
  • U.S. v. Ismaili, No. 86-5552
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 25, 1987
    ...court, the "compulsory process" clause guarantees the defendant the right to take their depositions. Contra, e.g., People v. McCartney, 38 N.Y.2d 618, 381 N.Y.S.2d 855, 856-57, 345 N.E.2d 326, 328 (1976) (no constitutional requirement under sixth amendment to compel the attendance of witnes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT