People v. Sanchez

Citation15 N.Y.2d 387,259 N.Y.S.2d 409,207 N.E.2d 356
Parties, 207 N.E.2d 356 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Javier SANCHEZ, Appellant.
Decision Date22 April 1965
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Nancy Carley, Jackson Heights, Melvin M. Lebetkin and Abraham Werfel, Jamaica, for appellant.

Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty. (Benj. J. Jacobson, Long Island City, of counsel), for respondent.

FULD, Judge.

The defendant Sanchez, convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, has been sentenced to death, and the principal question presented is whether certain statements made by him to law enforcement officials should have been excluded from evidence at his trial.

The record permits of no doubt that, at about 5:00 P.M. on July 5, 1963, an attorney, previously retained by the defendant, advised the police (by telephone and in person) that he wished to see and speak with his client who was then in the custody of the police at the station house and that the defendant was interrogated thereafter in the absence of counsel and made inculpatory statements to both the police and an assistant district attorney. These facts bring the case squarely within our decisions in People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628, People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 199 N.E.2d 366, and People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852, and it matters not, insofar as application of the rule therein stated is concerned, whether the defendant, when taken into custody, was regarded by the police as 'accused', 'suspect' or 'witness'. The significant or operative fact in such cases is that the defendant confessed or otherwise incriminated himself while being interrogated by the police in the absence of counsel after he had requested the aid of an attorney or one retained to represent him had contacted the police in his behalf.

In the present case, therefore, the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the statements (taken from Sanchez after his lawyer had communicated with the police) to be received in evidence. Upon the new trial which we are directing those statements are to be excluded.

The trial judge's error was undoubtedly induced by a mistaken belief that, if the lawyer was prevented by the police from conferring with his client, such fact was relevant only 'on the question of (the) voluntariness' of the defendant's subsequent admissions. Indeed, the court so charged the jury and refused defense counsel's request that the jurors be instructed that, should they find that the police denied the attorney access to the defendant, they were to exclude from consideration any statements thereafter obtained. The district attorney, with commendable frankness, acknowledges that the refusal to charge as requested was error and, although we need not reach the point in light of the view we have taken, it is manifest that there is no basis for the People's claim that such error was technical or harmless.

We have examined the serveral other arguments advanced by the defendant and find them without merit.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

SCILEPPI, Judge (concurring).

I agree that a new trial is required here because of the trial court's erroneous instruction to the jury that deprivation of counsel was only a factor to be considered on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant's confession. However, I cannot assent to the majority's assertion that the holdings in People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628, People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 250 N.Y.S.2d 167, 199 N.E.2d 366, and People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852, equally are applicable to statements made by a witness as distinguished from statements given by an 'accused' or a 'suspect'.

The general rule and it seems to me that at some point we must return to first principles is that all relevant evidence is admissible, unless excluded by some specific rule of law (1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 10, p. 293; Richardson, Evidence (9th ed.), § 5, p. 4). With respect to confessions, the specific exclusionary principles are rooted in overriding considerations of social policy. Thus, in Donovan, this court found sufficient reasons of policy to invoke the exclusionary principle in 'this State's constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to the privilege against self incrimination and the right to counsel (N.Y.Const. art. I, § 6; Code Crim. Proc. §§ 8, 188, 308, 699), not to mention our own guarantee of due process (N.Y.Const. art. I, § 6)' (13 N.Y.2d 148, 151, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 843, 193 N.E.2d 628, 629, supra). It was this interplay between the right to counsel and the privilege against self incrimination which formed the rationale for the Donovan holding for, in the court's opinion, having the benefit of these 'cherished individual rights', drefendant was entitled to consult with counsel so that he might be made aware of his rights and protect them. As the court phrased it, 'one of the most important protections which counsel can confer while his client is being detained by the authorities is to preserve his client's privilege against self incrimination and prevent the deprivation of that and other rights which may ensue from such detention' (supra, pp. 151-152, 243 N.Y.S.2d p. 843, 193 N.E.2d p. 629).

It is obvious from the foregoing that the decisions in Donovan and its sequelae presuppose that the right to counsel resided in the defendants at or before the time their statements were mde to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • People v. McQueen
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 27 Octubre 1966
    ...... In Johnson v. State of New Jersey (supra), the Supreme Court set the standard, and we should meet, but in no way exceed, that standard (see, e.g., People v. Gunner, supra, 15 N.Y.2d p. 234, 257 N.Y.S.2d p. 930, 205 N.E.2d p. 856; People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 390, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 410, 207 N.E.2d 356, 357; People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 183, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 271, 199 N.E.2d 366, 369). I confess to occasional difficulty in conforming my own views with those of the Supreme Court, in this area of the law; and now that I have found a ......
  • People v. Claudio
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Marzo 1982
    ......Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. pp. 469-470, 86 S.Ct. p. 1625; see People v. Cunningham, supra; Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378). .         The development of the Donovan concept continued in People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 207 N.E.2d 356, People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 239 N.E.2d 537 and People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894, and was further extended in People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709 and People v. ......
  • People v. Ressler
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 31 Marzo 1966
    ......Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852; People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628; People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 207 N.E.2d 356).         The defendant has appealed as well as the People, and some further comments are in order in respect of points raised by his counsel on appeal to serve as guidelines for the new trial. Page 416.         [17 N.Y.2d 179] ......
  • People v. Hobson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 4 Mayo 1976
    ......546). Indeed, the rule resisted narrow classification of defendants entitled to its protection; it is applicable to a defendant when taken into custody, whetehr as an 'accused', a 'suspect', or a 'witness' (cf. People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 389, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 410, 207 N.E.2d 356). .         Of course, as with all verbalizations of constitutional principles, the rule of . Page 422 . the Arthur case (supra) is not an absolute. Thus, the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding ......
  • 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