People v. Schwartz, 24 N.Y.2d 518 (1969)
A confession made after being confronted with legally seized evidence is admissible, even if the defendant previously made statements after an illegal search, as the later confession is not considered fruit of the poisonous tree.
Summary
Schwartz was convicted of stealing cash and checks. Police found a stolen check in a hotel washroom (unrelated to an initial call), and later, after an illegal search of Schwartz’s car, found clerical garb. At trial, a confession Schwartz made after being shown the check was admitted, detailing that he, dressed as a minister, stole the items. The New York Court of Appeals held that the confession was admissible because it stemmed from the legally seized check, not the illegal search of the car. The court modified the judgment to direct a Huntley hearing on the confession’s voluntariness because the trial court charged the jury on that subject.
Facts
On September 20, 1963, cash and checks were stolen from Montauk Freightways.
Police officers responded to a call at a hotel regarding an attempted robbery.
An officer found a check stolen from Montauk Freightways on a washroom window sill in the hotel.
Schwartz and another man were taken into custody.
A search of Schwartz’s car (later deemed illegal) produced clerical garb and ministerial identification.
Detective Greene testified that Schwartz confessed to being at Montauk Freightways dressed as a minister, soliciting money, and stealing a bag containing checks and cash when refused.
Procedural History
The trial court ruled the evidence from the car search inadmissible due to illegal seizure but allowed the check found in the washroom and related statements.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision without opinion.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on the admissibility of the confession and the need for a Huntley hearing on voluntariness.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Schwartz’s confession to Detective Greene, arguing it was a product of the illegal search and seizure of items in his car.
2. Whether the Appellate Division erred in not remanding the case for a hearing on the voluntariness of Schwartz’s confession, as per People v. Huntley.
Holding
1. No, because the confession was triggered by a legally seized check, not the illegally seized items from the car; thus, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply.
2. Yes, because under People v. Huntley, a hearing on the voluntariness of a confession is required if the trial court charged the jury on that subject, regardless of any objection during the trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the check found in the washroom was legally seized, as someone had discarded it there. Since the confession stemmed from confronting Schwartz with this legally obtained check, it was admissible. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which excludes evidence derived from illegal searches, did not apply here. The Court stated, “The fruit of the poisonous tree rule was designed to discipline law-enforcement officers rather than because of any bearing which it has on the guilt or innocence of a defendant.”
The Court rejected the argument that any admission made after being confronted with illegally seized evidence is automatically protected. Effective law enforcement required the officer to ask about the check, and there was no legal basis to prevent prosecution to that extent. The fact that Schwartz previously stated he stole items from Montauk Freightways when confronted with the clerical garb did not preclude further questioning about the legally seized check.
Regarding the voluntariness of the confession, the Court applied the rule from People v. Huntley, which mandates a hearing on voluntariness even if not objected to at trial, provided the trial court charged the jury on the issue. Since the trial court did so here, a Huntley hearing was required.
The Court modified the judgment to direct a Huntley hearing on the confession’s voluntariness, affirming the judgment as modified.