People v. Oakley
| Citation | 10 A.D.2d 457,200 N.Y.S.2d 961 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York Respondents, v. Henry OAKLEY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1960 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David B. Alford, Middleburgh, for appellant.
Richard H. Farley, Dist. Atty., Delaware County, Delhi, for respondents.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and COON, GIBSON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
It was charged that the defendant at his home during July, 1956, carnally abused a child, eight years of age, and repeated the abuses in a barn the following morning.
The trial of this type of case causes great difficulty, due to the tender age of the child involved; the acts are unwitnessed and the testimony repulsive to listening jury. Therefore, the closest scrutiny of the evidence is required to determine whether the defendant was fairly convicted and further whether there was a sufficiency of evidence to satisfy the requirements of the state.
While the acts complained of happened in July, 1956, no complaint was made until December, 1957, when a State Trooper called at the home of the complainant and sought information from her mother concerning an investigation in no way associated with the present charge. As a result the little girl was taken to the principal's office in the school she attended, interrogated by the officers and a written statement prepared. Bulwarked with this, the troopers went to the home of the defendant and thereafter conversed with him in their police automobile where he allegedly made oral admissions resulting in his being taken to the home of the Justice of the Peace where a written statement was prepared and signed.
The defendant contends the convictions should be set aside for the following reasons:
1. His admissions were taken in violation of his statutory and constitutional rights as they were taken before a magistrate before whom he was arraigned.
2. The child's statement and defendant's do not corroborate each other.
3. The indictments should have been dismissed after the People's opening statement. 4. The District Attorney improperly questioned a character witness of the defendant.
As to the latter, the attorney for the defendant made no objection at the time of the questioning of one of defendant's character witnesses but participated in such questioning. When a defendant produces a character witness, a new phase enters a criminal case and the door is opened (evidentiary) so that the District Attorney is given reasonably broad latitude in testing the knowledge and reasons forming the basis of the witness' opinion.
In People v. Laudiero, 192 N.Y. 304, at page 309, 85 N.E. 132, at page 134, the court said: 'It, therefore, became entirely proper on cross-examination to show by the witness what she had heard with reference to his character, upon which she based her judgment that he was a good and peaceable man.' By calling this type of witness the defendant assumes the risk of any unfavorable testimony adduced by the People on cross-examination and the questions in this case asked by the District Attorney were not in conflict with this rule.
Section 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states in part that the District Attorney must open the case, the purpose being to acquaint the jury and defendant in a general way with the crime charged and a broad outline of the People's case. We think the statement here sufficed to meet this requirement. The District Attorney, after explaining the charge, told of the statement given by the child, the confession of the defendant, the procedural difficulties which might be encountered with the little girl as a witness and commented: 'I would be the first to ask this jury to find this man not guilty if you are not satisfied as to the testimony of this little girl or if you do not feel his admissions against interest were obtained under proper circumstances'.
The objection of counsel for defendant was that the opening failed 'to state facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the law'. We find the opening of the case to the jury by the District Attorney met the mandate of the statute.
Before reaching the question of corroboration, we first consider the circumstances surrounding the taking of the confession.
It is not disputed that about 10:30 P.M. on the night of December 5, 1957, two members of the State Police went to the defendant's home, informed him they had a personal matter to discuss and he willingly went with them to the State Police car parked in front of his home where he was accused of the acts herein complained of. There was no physical violence, duress, or any substantial threats and the defendant denied the charges until he was asked if he wanted to lose another child--a sister of complainant--who had been living at his home since infancy. The troopers contend that he then admitted the incident which took place at his home and later--while still in the automobile--acknowledged the second affair.
The aftermath of these oral admissions resulted in taking the defendant to the home of a Justice of the Peace and there are many discrepancies in the testimony as to just what took place there. After giving defendant all of the legal protection to which he was entitled as outlined in the charge of the court, the jury could readily have found that one of the troopers sat at the typewriter in the home of the Justice and transcribed the colloquy which was thereafter read, at least twice, to the defendant who then voluntarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kurtz
...(People v. Benham, 160 N.Y. 402, 434, 55 N.E. 11; see, also, People v. Wade, 35 A.D.2d 401, 403, 317 N.Y.S.2d 122; People v. Oakley, 10 A.D.2d 457, 459, 200 N.Y.S.2d 961, revd. on other grounds 9 N.Y.2d 656, 212 N.Y.S.2d 72, 173 N.E.2d 48; see, generally, 3 Wharton's Criminal Procedure, § 4......
-
White v. State
...216 La. 212, 43 So.2d 585; State v. Olivieri, 49 Nev. 75, 236 P. 1100; State v. Borrego, 52 N.M. 202, 195 P.2d 622; People v. Oakley, 10 A.D.2d 457, 200 N.Y.S.2d 961; Hilyard v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 435, 214 P.2d 953; State v. Reynolds, 164 Or. 446, 100 P.2d 593; State v. Erwin, 101 Utah 365, ......
- West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.
-
Clarke v. State
...so as to prepare said trier of the facts for the evidence to be adduced. People v. Reed, 333 Ill. 397, 164 N.E. 847; People v. Oakley, 10 A.D.2d 457, 200 N.Y.S.2d 961, revd. on oth. grds. 9 N.Y.2d 656, 212 N.Y.S.2d 72, 173 N.E.2d 48; Bolden v. State, 199 Ind. 160, 155 N.E. 824. The prosecut......