People v. Pelow
| Decision Date | 06 March 1969 |
| Parties | , 247 N.E.2d 150 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James PELOW and Esther Bozeman Pelow, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Vincent E. Doyle, Jr., Buffalo, for appellants.
Michael F. Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Leslie G. Foschio, Buffalo, of counsel), for respondent.
Blair Young, an employee of Buffalo Automatic, Inc., arrived at work at approximately 8:00 A.M., on May 11, 1963, only to discover that the company's premises had been burglarized the previous night. Further investigation on his part disclosed that the company safe had been opened. He then summoned members of the safe and burglary squad of the Buffalo Police Department who immediately responded to his call. A subsequent search led to the discovery of certain tools apparently used by the burglar. One of the investigating officers then took the tools and proceeded to the Buffalo suburb of Cheektowaga where he spoke to a hardware store clerk, Walter Neubauer.
Mr. Neubauer had been previously instructed by the Buffalo police to report sales of certain items to them as part of a general plan to combat crime. Accordingly, when he sold an axe and crowbar to two men on May 8, he made a notation of the license plate of the vehicle used by the purchasers and notified the police of the sale. When the detective arrived at the hardware store three days later with the axe and crowbar, Neubauer was able to positively identify the items as ones that he had sold. A trace of the license plate number revealed that the car had been rented on that day by one Esther Bozeman, whom the police knew was a friend of defendant James Pelow, a suspected burglar. * While the investigation was proceeding as outlined above, a Detective Sergeant Quinn, in charge of the Buffalo safe and burglary squad, immediately suspected Pelow and, responding to this intuitive inclination, ordered his arrest on an outstanding assault charge.
Sergeant Quinn found Pelow at the Markeen Hotel in the presence of Miss Bozeman and another girl. After arresting Pelow, the sergeant suggested to Miss Bozeman that she accompany them to police headquarters for questioning concerning the burglary. At this time, the officer had no information directly linking her to the crime. Nevertheless, Miss Bozeman was placed in the custody of a policewoman and take to police headquarters where she was booked on a charge of vagrancy. At the time of he arrest, she had over $500 on her person, secreted in the bottom of her pocketbook.
Following the arrest of the defendants, Sergeant Quinn ordered the arrest, also on the assault charge, of Pelow's sister, Mrs. Kelly. When the police arrived at her apartment, they were greeted by another sister of the defendant Pelow, who informed them that Mrs. Kelly was not at home. The police entered the premises, apparently with permission, and found a briefcase and pail containing coins which were later identified as the fruits of the burglary.
After these coins had been seized, Sergeant Quinn commenced questioning the defendant Bozeman about the burglary. During this interrogation, she admitted that she accompanied Pelow and another man to Cheektowaga on May 8, and that they purchased some tools on that occasion. While she was being interrogated, Mr. Neubauer was brought to the station house and after viewing six men in a room for a considerable period of time, identified the defendant as the person who had purchased the tools from him several days before.
The defendants were tried jointly. James Pelow was convicted of grand larceny, burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar's tools and sentenced to imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years. His codefendant and spouse, Esther Bozeman, was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced for from one to three years. The convictions were unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. We granted leave to appeal.
Appellants present four points for our consideration. They argue: (1) that the coins found in Mrs. Kelly's apartment were illegally seized; (2) that the station house identification of Pelow by the witness was unnecessarily suggestive and constituted a denial of due process; (3) that Esther Bozeman's statement that she was with Pelow when he purchased the tools should not have been read in evidence against her, and (4) that the court erred in not redacting the reference in the afore-mentioned statement to defendant Pelow.
The Judge at the suppression hearing concluded that the officers searched the apartment of Mrs. Kelly with the consent of her sister. This affirmed finding precludes the defendants from asserting that the coins found in the apartment were illegally seized. It is thus unnecessary for us to consider the additional conclusion of that Judge that the defendants lacked standing to object to the search and seizure on the ground that they were not occupants of the premises.
Appellants' second argument, pertaining to the station house identification of the defendant Pelow, does not convince us that the identification procedure was 'so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification' as to amount to a denial of due process. (Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199.) At the time of the identification, Mr. Neubauer was asked to identify the defendant while viewing six men in a room. Five of these men were police officers in plain clothes. There was nothing distinctive about them that would cause Mr. Neubauer to immediately select the defendant. On the contrary, the fact that he took over 15 minutes to make his identification illustrates the fairness of the procedure. Since evidence of prior identifications is expressly permitted by statute (Code Crim.Proc., § 393--b) and, since the procedure employed was proper and in accord with our prior decisions (see People v. Brown, 20 N.Y.2d 238, 282 N.Y.S.2d 497, 229 N.E.2d 192; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 103), we conclude that this identification was proper and did not deny the defendant due process of law.
Defendant Bozeman contends that the court committed reversible error when it admitted her statement that she was with Pelow when he purchased the tools used in the burglary. Her contention is virtually identical to that advanced, quite recently, in People v. Jackson (22 N.Y.2d 446, 293 N.Y.S.2d 265).
In that case, defendant Shelly Jean Jackson was arrested for vagrancy by two members of the Rochester homicide squad. Police records listed him as a homicide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...438, 324 N.E.2d 103, 105; People v. Carter, 30 N.Y.2d 279, 282, 332 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866, 283 N.E.2d 746; People v. Pelow, 24 N.Y.2d 161, 165, 299 N.Y.S.2d 185, 187, 247 N.E.2d 150, 151; People v. Loria, 10 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 223 N.Y.S.2d 462, 466, 179 N.E.2d 478, 482, Supra; Schneckloth v. Bust......
-
People v. Crimmins
...257 N.E.2d 630, 633; People v. McKinney, 24 N.Y.2d 180, 185, 299 N.Y.S.2d 401, 405, 247 N.E.2d 244, 246; People v. Pelow, 24 N.Y.2d 161, 167, 299 N.Y.S.2d 185, 189, 247 N.E.2d 150, 152; People v. Miles, 23 N.Y.2d 527, 544, 297 N.Y.S.2d 913, 925, 245 N.E.2d 688, 697; People v. Mirenda, 23 N.......
-
People v. Ortiz
...United States ex rel. Cantanzaro v. Mancusi, 2 Cir., 404 F.2d 296); and error, if any, was harmless (cf. People v. Pelow, 3/6/69, 24 N.Y.2d 161, 299 N.Y.S.2d 185, 247 N.E.2d 150). Under the circumstances, 'the logic of Bruton is inapplicable'. (People v. McNiel, April 23, 1969, 24 N.Y.2d 55......
-
People v. Cassisa
...testified to by the detectives deleted from the record, to use the language of the Court of Appeals in People v. Pelow, 24 N.Y.2d 161, 167, 299 N.Y.S.2d 185, 188, 247 N.E.2d 150, 153, 'there would remain an overabundance of admissible evidence establishing the defendant's guilt beyond a rea......