People v. Mishkin

Citation229 N.E.2d 454,282 N.Y.S.2d 779,20 N.Y.2d 716
Parties, 229 N.E.2d 454 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward MISHKIN, Appellant.
Decision Date07 July 1967
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

John J. Mooney, Robert J. Fitzsimmons and Allan A. Pines, New York City, for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Alan F. Scribner and H. Richard Uviller, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed in a memorandum. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, was announced while this criminal action was pending on appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (15 N.Y.2d 671, 255 N.Y.S.2d 881, 204 N.E.2d 209) and likewise by the Supreme Court of the United States (383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56). The Supreme Court stated that the constitutional questions under Mapp v. Ohio were 'not presented by the record with sufficient clarity' (supra, pp. 512--513, 86 S.Ct. p. 965). Moreover, it is not now sought to be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction but on the postconviction writ of error Coram nobis where it is not available (People v. Muller, 11 N.Y.2d 154, 227 N.Y.S.2d 421, 182 N.E.2d 99; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601).


FULD, C.J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion in which BURKE and BERGAN, JJ., concur.

FULD, Chief Judge (dissenting).

The defendant was convicted, in 1960, of violating section 1141 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40 and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and, in addition, fined $12,500. Upon his trial--which was held before the Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081--he objected to the admission into evidence of over 15,000 allegedly obscene books on the ground that they had been obtained as a result of unlawful searches and seizures. The defendant's objections were overruled, presumably on authority of People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585, and he was thereby precluded from establishing the bases for his assertions that the searches and seizures were illegal.

The decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, supra, came down while the defendant's appeal was pending in the Appellate Division. Since the case was still 'in the normal course of the appellate process', he was entitled to avail himself of the new exclusionary rule (see, e.g., People v. Muller, 11 N.Y.2d 154, 156, 227 N.Y.S.2d 421, 182 N.E.2d 99; People v. Loria, 10 N.Y.2d 368, 371, 223 N.Y.S.2d 462, 465, 179 N.E.2d 478, 480; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731) and, when it reached this court, he sought a reversal on the ground, among others, that the books received in evidence against him had been illegally seized in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, we affirmed his conviction, expressly rejecting those constitutional arguments (15 N.Y.2d 671, 724, 255 N.Y.S.2d 881, 256 N.Y.S.2d 881, 204 N.E.2d 209, 205 N.E.2d 201) and, on his further appeal, the Supreme Court also affirmed the conviction (383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958).

It now appears, in retrospect, that we decided the search and seizure issue against him on the basis of an inadequate record. The Supreme Court, in affirming the judgment, took pains to point out that it declined 'to reach the merits of the search and seizure claim' because the 'farreaching and important questions tendered by this claim are not presented by the record with sufficient clarity' (383 U.S., at pp. 512--513, 86 S.Ct. at 965). The defendant has again raised the issue of illegal search and seizure, this time by an application for an order in the nature of a writ of error Coram nobis, and such application has been denied by the courts below without a hearing.

In other cases, in which appeals were pending...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Thomas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 2, 1968
    ... 282 F. Supp. 729 . UNITED STATES ex rel. Edward MISHKIN, Petitioner, . v. . James A. THOMAS, Warden of the City Penitentiary of the City of New York, Respondent. . 68 Civ. 464. . United States District ...2): . "In view of the then posture of the law in the State of New York concerning the matter of search and seizure as enunciated in People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13 150 N.E. 585 (1926), the question of the adequacy of the search warrant was not pursued to an ultimate finding at the trial ......
  • People v. Gates
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 22, 1971
    ...Coram nobis would be unavailable to test appellant's claim even if he had made proper objection upon the trial (People v. Mishkin, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 229 N.E.2d 454). The Court of Appeals having affirmed the conviction, instead of holding the appeal in abeyance pending remand ......
  • People v. Roache
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 19, 1984
    ...of justice. The record of the defendant's CPL 440 motion is not properly before us at this juncture (cf. People v. Mishkin, 20 N.Y.2d 716, 282 N.Y.S.2d 779, 229 N.E.2d 454; People v. Gates, 36 A.D.2d 761, 319 N.Y.S.2d We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to......
  • People v. Lane
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1967
  • 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