People v. Raymo

Decision Date01 February 1962
Citation32 Misc.2d 534,223 N.Y.S.2d 1014
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Vincent RAYMO, Defendant.
CourtNew York Court of General Sessions

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City (James F. Gill, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for the People .

Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant.

THOMAS DICKENS, Judge.

This motion by defendant's attorney has for its purpose a threefold drive: (a) The suppression of evidence resulting from an unlawful search and seizure; (b) an inspection of the grand jury minutes; and (c) a dismissal of the indictment.

No controversy exists regarding the ban by suppression. Conceding the illegality of the search in an opposing affidavit, the district attorney takes the bull by the horns and moves therein for a dismissal of the first count of the indictment, being the count in which the subject matter resulting from the illegal search, is alleged. He contends, however, that the illegal search does not render impotent the second count in which the facts of the attempt to commit the bribery, are alleged.

Skeletonized, the second count accuses defendant of an attempt to influence the arresting officer in order to release defendant from the arrest, by an alleged offer of a substantial sum of money, the arrest being the same which underlies the first count.

It appears that our court of last resort upholds, in legal effect, the position taken by the district attorney as expressed in his affidavit, to wit: 'That the illegal search and seizure has no bearing whatever with respect to the second count of the indictment charging the defendant with an attempt to commit the bribery.'

I am referring to the case of People v. Jackson, 191 N.Y. 293, 84 N.E. 65, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 1173. Stated in substance, the material facts, as related therein, are that a coroner contended that because his act as such public official in a judicial capacity, was one which he had performed beyond the bounds of his authority, he could not be charged with the bribery, for the commission of the bribery had arisen from the exercise of such lack of authority. In summarized form this citation supplies the following views of the court on the law, which I construe to be pertinent to the facts in hand (191 N.Y. at page 293):

'It is of no consequence, within the purview of the law, whether a judicial officer, when accepting a bribe to do an act apparently within his jurisdiction, actually had jurisdiction or not. The statute against bribery says nothing about jurisdiction, and official action means such as properly belongs to the office and is intended by the officer to be official, and, it is sufficient if the defendant assumed colore officii, to perform a function belonging to his office even if the right to perform it did not exist in the particular case. Just as an officer de facto is punishable for malfeasance in office the same as if he had been an officer de jure, so an officer de jure, acting apparently with, but really without jurisdiction, is punishable for accepting a bribe the same as if he had had complete jurisdiction, provided the action to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Rao
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 Julio 1976
    ...prerogatives, and to prevent oppression or persecution' (People v. Glen, 173 N.Y. 395, 400, 66 N.E. 112, 114; see also, People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014; People v. Navarra, 8 Misc.2d 497, 168 N.Y.S.2d 206). If the deficiency was manifest upon the face of the minutes, no al......
  • People v. Middleton
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Diciembre 1981
    ...221; People v. Munger, 37 A.D.2d 950, 326 N.Y.S.2d 212; app. dsmd. 33 N.Y.2d 576, 347 N.Y.S.2d 449, 301 N.E.2d 432; People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014; United States v. Troop, 7th Cir., 235 F.2d 123; United States v. Perdiz, 256 F.Supp. 805; People v. Guillory, 178 Cal.App.2......
  • United States v. Fay
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 26 Mayo 1964
    ...New York Code Crim.Proc. § 249; People v. Abramson, 40 Misc.2d 723, 243 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Sup. Ct.1963); People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (Ct.Gen.Sess. 1962); People v. Gonzales, 31 Misc.2d 486, 221 N.Y.S.2d 846, 854-855 (Ct.Gen. Sess.1961). Requiring petitioner to exhaust his......
  • People v. Bedjanzaden
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1969
    ...N.Y.S.2d 947; People v. Lenoci, 13 Misc.2d 789, 178 N.Y.S.2d 332; People v. Mollica, 25 Misc.2d 877, 204 N.Y.S.2d 514; People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014; People v. Colletti, 42 Misc.2d 158, 247 N.Y.S.2d 704; People v. Benson, 208 Misc. 138, 143 N.Y.S.2d 563; People v. Roth,......
  • 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