Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin H. Vella, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1967-12-29
Citations: 21 N.Y.2d 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin H. Vella, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 249–252

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin H. Vella, Appellant.
Argued December 5, 1967;
decided December 29, 1967.
Stuart J. Justice for appellant.
I. The actions by the State Police in obtaining a statement from this defendant under the circumstances of this case denied defendant effective assistance of counsel and constituted fundamental unfairness. Therefore all statements should have been suppressed. (People v. Donovan, 13 N Y 2d 148; People v. Friedlander, 16 N Y 2d 248; People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201; People v. Sanchez, 15 N Y 2d 387; People v. LeBrantz, 272 App. Div. 730; People v. Spivak, 237 N. Y. 460; People v. Gunner, 15 N Y 2d 226; People v. Bodie, 16 N Y 2d 275; People v. Lacy, 26 A D 2d 982; People v. Ressler, 17 N Y 2d 174; People v. Failla, 14 N Y 2d 178; People v. Robinson, 13 N Y 2d 296.) II. The search and seizure was illegal as it was not made pursuant to a lawful arrest or incidental thereto, or with a lawfully issued warrant. (People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643; People v. Taggart, 20 N Y 2d 335; People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441; People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368; People v. McCarthy, 14 N Y 2d 206.) III. The court’s charge was insufficient to afford defendant a jury trial of the issue of voluntariness of the confession. (Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368; People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72.)
George J. Aspland, District Attorney (Joseph F. O'Neill of counsel), for respondent.
I. The inculpatory statement given by appellant was properly admitted into evidence. He was not deprived of any constitutional right. (People v. Spivak, 237 N. Y. 460; People v. Bodie, 16 N Y 2d 275.) II. Appellant did not urge in the court below that the search and seizure were illegal. Hence, he should not be heard to raise it now. In any case there was probable cause for arresting appellant. (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160; People v. Peters, 18 N Y 2d 238.) III. The court’s charge on voluntariness was sufficient. Moreover, this point was not raised in the Appellate Division.

Opinion:
Chief Judge Fuld.
The defendant was arraigned in the New York City Criminal Court upon a charge of criminally receiving stolen property. Counsel was assigned to represent him, and the trial was adjourned to a future date. The defendant, released upon his own recognizance, was immediately arrested, as he was about to leave the courtroom, by New York State Police who were present during the arraignment proceedings. They turned him over to other members of the State Police force in Suffolk County. Shortly thereafter, these officers questioned him in the absence of, and without notice to, his attorney concerning a burglary of a private home in that county and the theft therefrom of property which was also involved in the New York County receiving charge. Such interrogation, despite the defendant's " waiver." of his right to counsel, was impermissible. Consequently, the confession obtained from him should not have been received in evidence. (See, e.g., People v. Donovan, 13 N Y 2d 148, 151-153; People v. Waterman, 9 N.Y 2d 561, 565-566; People v. Di Biasi, 7 N Y 2d 544, 549-551; Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 484-488, 490-492; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 204-206.)
Reversible error was also committed when the trial judge refused the defendant's request to submit to the jurors the question of the voluntariness of the confession after he had, in effect, instructed. them that they need only consider and decide whether the confession was true or false. (See, e.g., People v. Rensing, 20 N Y 2d 936; People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72, 77-78; People v. Barbato, 254 N. Y. 170, 172-174; Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 545-546.)
The conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.