Case Name: PEOPLE v. HOCHSTIM
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-11-14
Citations: 78 N.Y.S. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. HOCHSTIM.
Judges: Argued before O’BRiEN, HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHRIN, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 78
Pages: 638–644

Head Matter:
(76 App. Div. 25.)
PEOPLE v. HOCHSTIM.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 14, 1902.)
1. Elections — Deputy Superintendents — Duties—Right to Make Arbests.
The metropolitan election district act makes it the duty of deputy superintendents of elections to arrest without a warrant any person attempting to violate certain provisions of the election law. Defendant was indicted under Laws 1898, c. 676, § 7, amended by Laws 1899, c. 499, forbidding a person from hindering such officer in the performance of his duty; the indictment alleging that the officer lawfully had in custody a person who had falsely registered as a qualified voter, and that defendant aided him to escape. The evidence showed that such person’s right to register had been challenged, but that he did register after ah investigation in which the person was examined, — but the result of the examination was not shown, — and that, when such person attempted to vote, he was arrested by the officer, and defendant aided him to escape. Held, that it was error to refuse to direct an acquittal for failure to prove false registration, as, without such evidence, it did not appear that the officer was acting in the line of his duty.
2. Same — Peace Officers.
The fact that the deputy is also a peace officer did not justify the arrest, as, under Code Or. Proe. § 177, a peace officer can only arrest without warrant when the crime is committed in his presence, or where the person arrested has committed a felony, or a felony has been committed, and the officer believes the person arrested to be the one who committed it.
Appeal from court of general sessions, New York county.
Max Hochstim was convicted of hindering and delaying an election officer in the performance of his duty, and appeals. See 73 N. Y. Supp. 626.
Reversed.
Argued before O’BRiEN, HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHRIN, JJ.
William D. Guthrie and Ira Leo Bamberger, for appellant.
Job E. Hedges, for the People.
For additional opinion, see 78 N. Y. Supp. 986.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
This appeal is from a judgment convicting the defendant of a felony, for which he was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of not less than one year, nor more than three years. Chapter 425, Raws 1901. The facts set forth in the indictment as con-' stituting the crime were, in substance, that on the 7th day of November, 1899, one William M. Chapman, a deputy superintendent of elections in and for the metropolitan election district, lawfully had in his custody and under arrest one James Bassett, who was guilty of a felony, in that he had falsely registered as a qualified voter in a certain district of the city of New York, and that the defendant, having knowledge of such facts, hindered and delayed Chapman in the performance of his duties as such officer, in violation of the provisions of section 7 of chapter 676 of the Raws of 1898, as amended by chapter 499 of the Raws of 1899, by acting with others in releasing Bassett and aiding him to escape. At the trial it appeared, or evidence was adduced from which the jury might have found, that Chapman was a duly appointed deputy superintendent of elections, and at the time stated in the indictment, and for some time prior thereto, had been acting as such; that on the 20th of October, 1899, Bassett claimed the right to register as an elector in a certain election district of the city of New York, for the purpose of qualifying himself to vote in such district at the general election to be held on the 7th of November following; that his right to register was challenged by Chapman, but, notwithstanding that fact, he took the oath required by statute, and was duly registered; that thereafter Chapman instituted an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether Bassett resided at the place given by him in his application for registration, and, as a part of such investigation, took him to the office of the superintendent of elections for examination, but what there transpired does not appear in the record before us. It is, however, fairly to be inferred, inasmuch as no proceedings were taken to strike Bassett's name from the roll of qualified voters prior to the election, that facts were not established which justified action being taken for that purpose. This inference must necessarily be drawn, in view of the fact that no evidence whatever was offered at the trial that Bassett did not have the legal right to register in the district in which he did, or to vote therein at the general election held on November 7, 1899. On the day of election, Bassett presented himself at the. polling place in the district where he had registered, and, as he approached the ballot clerk, he gave his name and address and asked for ballots, whereupon Chapman, who had previously gone to the polling place, stepped forward and placed his hand upon Bassett's shoulder, at the same time saying that he arrested him for illegal registration; and what followed such announcement is described by Chapman. He testified that:
"A dispute immediately arose as to whether he should be arrested before he voted or after he voted. I said my orders were to place him under arrest before he voted. The crowd then, among whom was Hochstim, said he would vote first, and then afterwards I could arrest him."
A disturbance immediately followed, in which several persons, including the defendant, took part; and the result of which was that Chapman was pushed into a corner of the room, and there kept until Bassett had voted and escaped from the room.
At the close of the people's case, and again at the close of the whole case, motions were made by the defendant's counsel to direct the jury to acquit the defendant upon the ground that the people had •failed to establish facts sufficient to sustain the indictment, in that they had failed to prove that Bassett was guilty of the felony of ifalse registration. Both motions were denied, and an exception in each instance duly taken. These exceptions present one of the •grounds upon which a reversal of the judgment of conviction is asked.
We are of the opinion that the exceptions were well taken, and that they necessitate a reversal of the judgment. The crime, for the •commission of which the defendant was convicted, was that he, at .the time stated in the indictment, hindered and delayed Chapman, a deputy superintendent of elections, in the performance of his duty, in •violation of section 7 of the statute hereinbefore referred to, which provides that any person who shall willfully hinder or delay a deputy superintendent of elections in the performance of his duty shall be guilty of a felony. That the evidence justified the jury in finding that the defendant did in fact hinder and delay Chapman in attempting to arrest Bassett cannot, we think, be seriously questioned. It is conceded that the arrest was attempted to be made without a warrant.
The metropolitan election district act imposes certain duties upon -deputy superintendents of elections, and, among others, to arrest without a warrant any person who, in the presence of such officer, violates or attempts to violate any provision of the election law or the Penal Code relating to crimes against the elective franchise (section 6, subd. 2). It does not require such officer to1 arrest without a warrant in any other case, nor has he any authority to do so undei; the act. Here absolutely no proof whatever was offered to the effect that Bassett had violated or attempted to violate any provision of the election law, or committed any crime. It is true that Chapman had previously challenged Bassett's right to register, but the challenge was of no avail, inasmuch as evidence was furnished sufficient to satisfy the officers having the registry in charge; nor did the people, upon the trial, notwithstanding the fact was alleged in the indictment, .attempt to prove that Bassett did not in fact have a legal right to register, or to vote at the time the attempt was made to arrest him. In the absence, therefore, of proof to the effect that Bassett was guilty • of the felony of false registration, as alleged in the indictment, or that he at the time had no right to vote, or had committed some crime ragainst the elective franchise, no duty was imposed on Chapman, and he had no right to arrest him, and in attempting to do so he was not acting in the line of his duty. Under the statute, Chapman was a peace officer, but this did not give him a right to arrest without a warrant, any more than did the act under which he was appointed. An arrest can be made, under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by a peace officer without a warrant, only when-a crime has been committed or attempted in his presence, or where the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence, or where a felony has in fact been committed, and the officer making the arrest believes the person arrested to have committed it. Craven v. Bloomingdale, 54 App. Div. 266, 66 N. Y. Supp. 525, Here, as already indicated, the people failed to establish any of the facts which justified Chapman, as a peace officer, in making an arrest without a warrant, and in attempting to do so he had no more authority than he did as deputy superintendent of elections. Under the facts established, Chapman's act was unauthorized, and an unjustifiable interference with an elector's right to vote. There was therefore at the close of the people's case, as well as at the close of the whole case, a failure to prove the fact alleged in the indictment which would have justified Chapman in arresting Bassett without a warrant, viz., that he was guilty of "the felony of false registration,'' and for this failure the jury should have been directed to acquit.
The judgment of conviction appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial granted.
O'BRIEN, J., concurs. LAUGHLIN, J., concurs in result.