People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 09 March 1965
• Citation: 22 A.D.2d 524,256 N.Y.S.2d 944
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard TAYLOR, Impleaded, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 944

256 N.Y.S.2d 944

22 A.D.2d 524

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard TAYLOR, Impleaded, etc., Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 9, 1965.

Myron J. Greene, New York City, of counsel (Myron J. Greene and Jack Rosenberg, New York City, attorneys), for defendant-appellant.

Malvina H. Guggenheim, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel (Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County), for respondent.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, McNALLY, STEUER and WITMER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered June 27, 1963 in New York County convicting the defendant of murder in the first degree and sentencing him to State prison for life. Among other grounds for his appeal, the defendant claims that his confession used against him upon the trial was obtained after he asked the privilege of calling his family and after his family sought to see him; that he had a constitutional right to consult with his family before being further interrogated by the police; that the record shows he was denied this privilege; and that hence the confession which he made was involuntarily obtained and inadmissible.

The defendant testified that directly after he was taken to the police station, and before being taken upstairs for questioning, he asked Detective Santiago if he could call his family, and the detective told him he could not. Detective Santiago was not called to testify. Defendant also testified that he later asked Detective Rice and other detectives present to call his family, and they refused; but this testimony was denied by Detective Rice. Defendant's brother testified that he came to the police station with defendant's family to see the defendant. The police brought the brother into defendant's presence in an effort to help obtain the confession; but the brothers did not speak to each other in private. Although defendant's family were at the police station during much of the time defendant was being interrogated, they were not permitted to consult with him. There is no testimony that they expressly asked to talk with defendant that evening, but it is reasonable to assume that that was why they went there, and that they were denied the privilege.

In People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 193 N.E.2d 628, it was held that a confession obtained by the police after they had refused defendant's request to consult his attorney was inadmissible (see, also, Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977). In People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 199 N.E.2d 366, it was held that where the police denied access to the defendant by an attorney sent to him by his parents, a confession then in the process of being taken was rendered inadmissible. Many persons accused of crime are not wise enough, without suggestion, to ask to see a lawyer, or are so impecunious that they believe they cannot obtain one without outside aid; and the request of such a person to see his family...