People v. Robinson

• Citation: 16 A.D.2d 184,224 N.Y.S.2d 705
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie James ROBINSON, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest JACKSON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 22 February 1962
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 705

224 N.Y.S.2d 705

16 A.D.2d 184

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie James ROBINSON, Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest JACKSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Feb. 22, 1962.

John G. Putnam, Jr., Buffalo, for appellant Robinson.

Herald P. Fahringer, Buffalo, for appellant Jackson.

Carman F. Ball, Buffalo, for respondent Leonard F. Walentynowicz, Buffalo, of counsel.

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, McCLUSKY and HENRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants and one Williams were indicted and charged with murder, first degree--a killing that occurred while they were allegedly engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery, first degree. They were convicted of that crime with a jury recommendation for leniency. Thereupon they were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The errors that require a new trial for both appellants center upon certain statements of confessions made by them and received in evidence upon the trial. The alleged robbery and ensuing fatal shooting occurred in the evening of April 18, 1959. Appellant Jackson was arrested on April 20th and was questioned by various detectives and police officers until his final arraignment on April 22nd at two o'clock in the afternoon. He steadfastly maintained his innocence, although statements made orally and in writing by the codefendants had identified him as one of the participants.

Following his arraignment Jackson was returned to a cell in police headquarters. That evening he was again questioned by the Police Commissioner who testified that he informed Jackson that his codefendants had admitted their participation, and Jackson should tell the truth. The latter was quoted by the Commissioner as stating that he (Jackson) 'had too much to lose' and that he would 'take his chances'. The post-arraignment activities of the police continued. The following day they placed a police informer in an adjoining cell to Jackson's and two detectives secreted themselves within hearing distance. The informer, in conversations with Jackson, extracted from the latter what amounted to a complete confession including the hiding places of the guns used in the robbery. These overheard conversations were related upon the trial in detail by the detective. Subsequently the detectives went to the attic of Jackson's residence and found the two guns in the hiding place described by appellant.

The admission in evidence of these incriminatory statements and the fruits thereof after Jackson's arraignment and at a time he was represented by counsel constituted reversible error. (People v. DiBiasi, 7 N.Y.2d 544, 200 N.Y.S.2d 21, 166 N.E.2d 825; People v. Waterman, 9 N.Y.2d 561, 216 N.Y.S.2d 70, 175 N.E.2d 445; People v. Meyer, 14 A.D.2d 241, 220 N.Y.S.2d 438).

We are also of the opinion that the statement of the appellant, Robinson, taken by the District Attorney on the morning of April 22nd should have been redacted so as to eliminate therefrom references to the codefendants. We lay down no broad rule that this should be done on every occasion. But when, as here, the statement lends itself to redaction (as demonstrated in the appendix to Jackson's brief in this court) and the references to a nonconfession defendant are particularly damaging, some method should be devised other than the cautionary instructions of the trial court to assure a...