Document: 375 U.S. 85 84 S.Ct. 229 11 L.Ed.2d 171 Harold FAHY, Petitioner,v.STATE OF CONNECTICUT. No. 19—October Term, 1963. Argued Oct. 16, Decided Dec. 2, Francis J. McNamara, Jr., Stamford, Conn., for petitioner. John F. McGowan, Bridgeport, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner waived trial by jury and was convicted in a Connecticut state court wilfully injuring public building violation General Statutes § 53—45(a). Specifically, petitioner his codefendant Arnold1 were found guilty having painted swastikas on Norwalk, Connecticut, synagogue. The took place before our decision Mapp v. Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081, but conviction affirmed appeal after that decision. Fahy, 149 Conn. 577, 183 A.2d 256 (1962). At case, can black paint brush admitted into evidence over petitioner's objection. On appeal, Supreme Court Errors held had been obtained means an illegal search seizure. It further applies to cases pending courts at time rendered, and, therefore, erred admitting evidence. However, because it admission unconstitutionally have harmless error.2 We granted certiorari, 372 928, 83 871, 9 732 (1963). 2 facts t is not now necessary us decide whether erroneous seizure ever be subject normal rules 'harmless error' under federal standard what constitutes error. Compare Ker California, 374 23, 1623, 10 726. find this prejudicial; error harmless, must reversed. are concerned here with there sufficient which could without complained of. question reasonable possibility might contributed conviction. To question, review case adduced trial. 3 February 1, 1960, between hours 4 5 a.m., steps walls Norwalk about 4:40 Officer Lindwall police saw automobile being operated lights block from Upon stopping car, Fahy driving Arnold passenger. questioned their reason out hour, they told him diner coffee going home. also checked car front seat. Having no do otherwise, released Arnold. He followed Fahy's Later same morning, learned painting swastikas. Thereupon, he went home and—without applied or arrest warrant—entered garage house removed brush. About two later, returned home, company other policemen. Pursuant valid warrant, officers arrested trial, assume, as did Errors, doing so thus inadmissible rule Ohio. Examining effect upon conduct defense, we inescapable conclusion court's prejudicial cannot called harmless. Obviously, tangible itself incriminating. In addition, used corroborate testimony presence near scene crime committed time. When testified concerning incident, following transpired: 'Q. Will you tell car? 7 'A. Checking passengers' side, seat I small jar 8 Are able identify object show you? Yes. What it? A motor vehicle. 12 ask if that. 13 Yes, sir. 14 15 16 Where first see brush? 17 Under car.' 18 offered received found: '13. defendants operating when stopped earlier morning.' inferred illegally seized made Lindwall's far more damaging than would otherwise been. 19 basis matched markings synagogue, forging another link accused charged. Police Tigano examined synagogue determined put paint. contents contained Even Tigano's taken 'to measure width paintings swastikas.' Over objection, then 'fitted some drawings lines due fact dripped.' Thus '14. two-inch synagogue.' relation testimony, obvious. 20 Other incriminating admissions full confession station later. Testifying Lieutenant Virgulak recounted who just waking up time, arrested: 21 'I (sic, he) said, 'Oh, that?' appeared lay back bed. 22 Did any conversation reached remember? asked said only prank why kicks.' 23 station, questioning, he, take responsibility give statement events, complied, dictating complete typewritten pages. After against read and: 24 finished reading it, will (Fahy) comment? 25 version story like written declined.' 26 record does knew en route station. oral argument, however, counsel State 'probably' then. Of course, defendants, unquestionably confessed. But allowed pursue inquiry because, exclusionary courts. unable claim induced confession. has challenge new And think such line permissible. As noted past: 'The essence provision forbidding acquisition certain way merely acquired shall all.' See Silverthorne Lumber Co. United States, 251 385, 392, 40 182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319; Nardone 308 U.S 338, 60 266, 307; Wong Sun 371 471, 407, 441. should chance confronted 27 Nor ignore cumulative defense subsequent use state's introduction stand, acts, tried establish nature those acts within scope felony statute charged.3 mean suggest presented based privilege self-incrimination. note course events indication erroneously 28 From foregoing clearly appears hence Therefore, reversed, cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 29 Reversed remanded. 30 HARLAN, whom CLARK, STEWART WHITE join, dissenting. 31 merits consideration Court, alone accounts all, majority reach: Does Fourteenth Amendment prevent applying its harmless-error criminal respect through unconstitutional seizure? avoids issue disregarding finding outcome 32 Evidentiary questions sort proper part Court's business, particularly coming possesses supervisory power. This rare instance rests devoid support charge defendant, Thompson Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654; Garner Louisiana, 368 157, 82 248, 207. most leaves open differing conclusions. That, furnishes ground intervention, even name avoiding constitutional brought here. 33 Furthermore, taking own bottom, feel compelled say, respect, am understand evaluation record. below provides answer prejudiced him: 34 '* * claim, nor, transcript shows, confessions. Their that, '(h)ad preclude evidence, (their) confessions admissible,' Doucette, 147 95, 98, 157 487, was, apart confessions, ufficient corpus delicti, is, charged someone. words, state, order prove committed, rely solely ample besides defendants' o'clock morning 1960. claimed, inadmissibility advanced. 35 brush, exhibits, were, most, cumulative. chief, discloses overwhelming guilt defendants. They observed approximately riding lights, stop officer pursued them upwards mile. later came warrants them, once attempted excuse 'prank.' Both freely *' 587—588, 256, 261 262. 36 discussion corroborative surely beside point both during disputed raised charged.1 37 brings me Was constitutionally permissible apply save vitiating evidence? not. obvious connection degree harm caused admission. turns reasons context particular case. Erroneously 'constitutional' may often 'unconstitutional' Since plainly affords shield prosecutors obtained, secure conviction, danger application undermine prophylactic function inadmissibility. 38 Cases sufficiency validate introduced e.g., Malinski New York, 324 401, 65 781, 89 1029, inapposite. well never considered nonprejudicial. event, required determination exclusion changed That much stricter independently trier different excluded.2 39 affirm. appeals heard decided together. filed petition certiorari; dismissed Arnold's motion petition. Connecticut's statutory states need reverse judgment finds errors 'have materially injured appellant.' 52—265 (1958). rejected argument 'defacement,' 'injury,' building. involved passed 1832 'injure deface' 1875, words 'or omitted, remained essentially unchanged thereafter. 'injure' includes defacement acts. quoted portion relying unlawfully confession, accepts which, lack foundation record, There consider governs, since applie strict possible standard.

Category: 0