People v. Pereira, 29 N.Y.2d 269 (1971)

A confession is not rendered involuntary solely because it was obtained through deception, unless the deception is coupled with a promise of leniency or immunity, or if it amounts to coercion that overcomes the suspect’s will.

Summary

Pereira was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a homicide and criminally possessing a pistol. The conviction stemmed from statements he made to police, including an admission about disposing of the murder weapon. Pereira argued that his statements were involuntary because they were induced by a detective’s misrepresentation that Pereira was merely a witness and by an assistant district attorney’s false claim that their conversation was recorded. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, holding that the deception did not render the confession involuntary because there was no promise of immunity or leniency and the deception did not overcome Pereira’s will.

Facts

Frank Falco killed Robert Munos and assaulted James Warga in a bar. Pereira was present at the bar and had a conversation with Falco before the homicide. After the shooting, Pereira admitted to taking a gun from Falco and disposing of it. He also told the bar owner and bartender to keep quiet about what they saw. Detective Pickett told Pereira that the People had a weak case in the killing of Munos and that they would like to use him as a witness. Assistant District Attorney Hammer falsely told Pereira that the room where they were talking was bugged.

Procedural History

Pereira was convicted of being an accessory after the fact and criminally possessing a pistol. He appealed, arguing that his statements to the police were involuntary and should not have been admitted into evidence. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a confession is rendered involuntary and inadmissible solely because it was obtained through police deception.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of whether the defendant’s statements were voluntarily made.

Holding

1. No, because deception alone does not render a confession involuntary unless it is coupled with a promise of leniency or immunity, or if it amounts to coercion that overcomes the suspect’s will.
2. No, because the deception employed did not rise to the level of coercion required to render the statements involuntary, and there was no promise of immunity.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the voluntariness of Pereira’s statements was not impugned by the misrepresentation that their conversation had been recorded or by any other deception. The court distinguished this case from others where confessions were deemed involuntary because they were induced by false promises of assistance or immunity. The court emphasized that there was no evidence that Assistant District Attorney Hammer had authorized any promise of immunity and that Detective Pickett’s statement about intending to use Pereira only as a witness was made in good faith and did not constitute a promise of leniency. The court quoted People v. Leyra, 302 N.Y. 353, noting that “while deception alone * * * may not render a confession invalid”. The court found that Pereira was not led to believe that he would benefit or profit in any manner by making a statement. The court concluded that the deception did not overcome Pereira’s will or make his confession involuntary.