People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 16 March 1982 |
| Citation | 113 Misc.2d 267,448 N.Y.S.2d 973 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Eric SMITH, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant Eric Smith has been charged in the above-noted indictment with two counts of murder second degree, two counts of robbery second degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon second degree. The instant motion, in which defendant seeks certain relief under the so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, comes before the Court in a rather unusual posture. On Jan. 6, 1982, after a pretrial Huntley hearing, this Court suppressed certain statements defendant had given the police, the Court finding that the statements had been taken improperly following defendant's request for an attorney. See P. v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421, 400 N.E.2d 360. The Court additionally found, however, that the statements had not been coerced out of defendant nor given under any threat, and that the suppressed statements therefore could still be used by the People for impeachment purposes. See Harris v. N.Y., 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1. The People were then granted, per statute, (see CPL 450.20(8)) a thirty-day adjournment to decide whether or not they could proceed to trial under this indictment without these statements, or whether they would seek to appeal from the Court's ruling.
In the interim, however, a totally unforeseen event occurred. On Jan. 27, 1982, at the trial of defendant's codefendant George Montgomery, separately charged with the same crime of murder, this defendant, accompanied by counsel, was called as a defense witness. Outside the presence of the jury defendant waived his 5th Amendment rights, and proceeded to testify on behalf of codefendant George Montgomery, during which testimony he repeated the substance of his suppressed statements and was extensively cross-examined thereon. The People thereafter chose to forego any appeal of this Court's Huntley ruling and stated their intention to use the testimony given by defendant on the trial of codefendant Montgomery upon the forthcoming trial of defendant.
Defendant argues that the testimony he gave upon the trial of codefendant Montgomery should be suppressed as the tainted "fruit" of the statements suppressed upon the Huntley hearing. In support of that contention, defendant relies upon the case of Harrison v. U. S., 392 U.S. 219, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047. There, on defendant's second trial for felony murder, the prosecution introduced three confessions given by defendant to the police. Following the introduction of these statements into evidence, the defendant, who through counsel, had opened to the jury that he would not testify, took the stand to present his version of events. Defendant was convicted, but the conviction was later reversed on grounds that the confessions had been obtained illegally. Subs...
To continue reading
Request your trial