People v. Woodruff

• Decision Date: 07 July 1966
• Citation: 272 N.Y.S.2d 786,26 A.D.2d 236
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rosemary WOODRUFF, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 786

272 N.Y.S.2d 786

26 A.D.2d 236

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Rosemary WOODRUFF, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 7, 1966.

Samuel R. Rosen, Richard T. Rosen and Noel Tepper, Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

John R. Heilman, Dist. Atty. (Albert M. Rosenblatt, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for respondent.

Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, HILL, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.

HOPKINS, Justice.

The contemner, pursuant to subpoena, appeared before the Grand Jury then engaged in an inquiry concerning certain claimed criminal activities at Castalia Foundation wherein she resided.The criminal activities under investigation by the Grand Jury related to the illegal possession and use of narcotic drugs, acts of adultery, and the maintenance of a disorderly house.The Grand Jury conferred immunity on the contemner pursuant to statute(Penal Law, § 2447).

The contemner refused, despite her immunity, to answer questions concerning the use and possession of narcotics by residents of Castalia Foundation.She predicated her refusal principally on her rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution(art. I, § 3), stating that to answer the questions would violate the tenets of her religious belief in that her testimony would tend to bring harm to others; she also asserted that the questions were beyond the scope of the inquiry and that her immunity was not as broad as her liability to incrimination.

The contemner was thereafter brought before the County Court and persisted in her refusal to testify.The court then held a hearing, at which the contemner testified with respect to her faith in a religion akin to Hinduism (though without name), practiced at Castalia Foundation, and her belief, as a part of that religion, that she should not testify where harm would thereby result to others, including her coreligionists.Moreover, witnesses expert in the field of Oriental religion and Hinduism testified that her refusal to testify was based on a belief sincerely held by devotees of Hinduism.

Following the hearing the court held the contemner in contempt, though finding that she was sincere in her religious belief.On this appeal, the contemner contends in effect that the proceedings below were improperly conducted on several grounds: (1) there was no institution of the proceeding by attachment or order to show cause; (2) the order adjudicating the contempt failed to state the basis for the violation of section 750 of the Judiciary Law;(3) the contemner was not clearly directed by the court to testify; and (4) immunity was not granted to the contemner in the terms of the statute authorizing the grant.

We have considered these contentions, and find them meritless.The County Court gave a clear direction to the contemner to testify, and the record shows that the contemner was aware of that direction and reiterated to the court her refusal to testify.The court might have then regarded her refusal as a contempt committed in open court and summarily punished her (cf.People ex rel. Cirillo v. Warden of City Prison, 11 N.Y.2d 51, 53, 226 N.Y.S.2d 398, 181 N.E.2d 424;Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 79 S.Ct. 539, 3 L.Ed.2d 609); instead, the court held a hearing, after adjourning the proceedings to give the contemner the opportunity to prepare, and the contemner and her witnesses testified at the hearing.The order adjudicating the contempt is clear and complete, and we see no defect in the manner in which the Grand Jury granted immunity to the contemner.

Additionally, the contemner contends that her testimony cannot be compelled because a search of Castalia Foundation was made under an invalid warrant.The issue of the validity of the search warrant is not directly presented to us.In any event, we hold that a Grand Jury investigation in which immunity is conferred on a witness cannot be thwarted or impeded in obtaining the oral testimony of the witness by reason of a prior invalid search or seizure.

The contemner's main ground for reversal is that she has an unqualified right to practice her religious beliefs and that the compulsion of her testimony will do violence to her religious principles.We note the contemner's sincerity in her position, and that our Constitutions, both federal and state, recognize the plurality of religious beliefs, including Hinduism (cf.United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 175, 189--190, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733); without doubt, the freedom of the exercise of religious worship is a preferred right in the hierarchy of our constitutional privileges (Matter of Brown v. McGinnis, 10 N.Y.2d 531, 536, 225 N.Y.S.2d 497, 500, 180...