People v. Sampson

• Decision Date: 16 February 1989
• Citation: 539 N.Y.S.2d 288,536 N.E.2d 617,73 N.Y.2d 908
• Parties: , 536 N.E.2d 617 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald L. SAMPSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 288

539 N.Y.S.2d 288

73 N.Y.2d 908, 536 N.E.2d 617

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald L. SAMPSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 16, 1989.

Robert L. Adams, Troy, for appellant.

James B. Canfield, Dist. Atty. (Youel C. Smith, III, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 134 A.D.2d 706, 521 N.Y.S.2d 350, should be affirmed.

Defendant, a Vermont resident, was suspected of having committed a murder in New York. New York police went to question defendant in Vermont. They did not possess probable cause to arrest defendant, nor did they intend to make an arrest at that time. Upon questioning, however, defendant confessed to the murder, and was arrested in Vermont by the New York police. Following this first confession defendant made additional statements, further incriminating himself. The New York poli then brought defendant back to New York.

Defendant subsequently moved to suppress, among other things, the statements made and evidence gathered following his initial confession, as the products of an illegal detention by the New York police. His motion was denied, and defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. The Appellate Division, affirming the conviction on appeal, held that even if the detention following the confession was illegal, the statements made during that period were similar to the valid initial confession, and thus any erroneous failure to suppress was harmless. In this court, however, the People concede that the doctrine of harmless error does not apply in the present situation, where an allegedly erroneous failure to suppress wasfollowed by a guilty plea (see, e.g., People v. Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 379-380, 408 N.Y.S.2d 429, 380 N.E.2d 257).

On this appeal defendant again argues for suppression of evidence gathered following his initial confession, on the basis that his detention by the New York police constituted a failure to comply with CPL 140.10. He maintains that under this statute, after implicating himself in the murder, he immediately should have been turned over to the Vermont police, which would have precluded further questioning by the New York police (see also, CPL 140.55[2]; Vt.Stat.Annot., tit. 13, §§ 5041, 5042). In his brief in this court defendant posits no constitutional arguments regarding the authority of the New York police, as out-of-State actors, to proceed as they did; instead, he argues only that suppression is required because the New York police failed to follow statutory guidelines in arresting him in Vermont.

We considered this very argument in People v. Junco, 35 N.Y.2d 419, 363 N.Y.S.2d 82, 321 N.E.2d 875. In that case New York police pursued the defendant into New Jersey, where he was arrested. However, in violation of the New Jersey statutory requirement that once arrested, a...