People v. Gonzalez, 50 N.Y.2d 911 (1980)
An appellate court’s determination that consent to a search was involuntary as a matter of law is a question of law reviewable by the Court of Appeals; however, the case must be remitted to the Appellate Division for determination of the facts if the Court of Appeals finds the legal determination to be in error.
Summary
The defendant was convicted based on evidence seized after police entered his apartment with his wife’s consent. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the wife’s consent involuntary as a matter of law and suppressing the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the determination of involuntariness as a matter of law was erroneous. Because the Appellate Division based its decision on a question of law, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review it. The case was then remitted to the Appellate Division to determine the factual issues surrounding the consent.
Facts
The police entered the defendant’s apartment and seized a gun. The entry was based on the purported consent of the defendant’s wife. The suppression court made findings of fact related to the circumstances of the wife’s consent. At the suppression hearing, evidence was presented regarding the circumstances surrounding the wife’s consent to the police entry.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the motion to suppress the gun. The defendant was subsequently convicted. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment, finding that the wife’s consent was involuntary as a matter of law and dismissing the indictment. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division erred in determining that the defendant’s wife’s consent to the police entry was involuntary as a matter of law.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the People failed to establish voluntary consent as a matter of law was erroneous.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division’s holding was based on an incorrect determination of law. The Appellate Division had concluded that, based on the record, no view of the evidence could support a finding of voluntary consent. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that this legal conclusion was in error. Because the Appellate Division’s order was based on a determination of law, the Court of Appeals had the power to review it. The Court emphasized that its power of review was limited to the question of law. Citing People v. Palumbo, 49 N.Y.2d 928 and People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26, the Court stated that it must remit the case to the Appellate Division for determination of the facts pursuant to CPL 470.40 (subd 2, par [b]). The court stated, “Although in doing so it made findings additional to those made by the suppression Judge, its holding was that the People had failed to meet their burden of establishing voluntary consent as a matter of law, that is to say, that under no view of the evidence in the record could it be found to be voluntary.”