People v. Terry, 26 N.Y.2d 262 (1970)

A party cannot raise an equal protection challenge to a statute’s appellate procedures if the court’s consideration of the merits of their case effectively negates any potential harm from the alleged unequal treatment.

Summary

Defendants Terry, Pereira, and Cruz, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the denial of their coram nobis petitions. They argued that Section 517(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires those under a death sentence to seek leave to appeal denial of coram nobis relief directly to the Court of Appeals, violates equal protection because those not under a death sentence have an absolute right to appeal to the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals held that because it granted leave to appeal and considered the merits of their coram nobis applications, the defendants lacked standing to raise the equal protection claim. The court also rejected their substantive arguments regarding the admissibility of their confessions.

Facts

Terry, Pereira, and Cruz were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment. They each sought coram nobis relief, alleging errors in their convictions. Terry claimed his confession was admitted in violation of his rights, as it was obtained after he was confronted with illegally seized evidence. Pereira and Cruz argued their confessions were involuntary because they were unaware that the victim had died when they confessed.

Procedural History

The defendants were initially convicted of first-degree murder, and their convictions were affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals. They subsequently filed coram nobis petitions in the Supreme Court, New York County. Terry’s petition was denied without a hearing, while Pereira and Cruz received Huntley hearings. All three defendants appealed the denial of their petitions. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal directly from the Supreme Court’s orders denying coram nobis relief.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the appellants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 517(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code on equal protection grounds.
2. Whether Terry’s confession should have been suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
3. Whether Terry was entitled to a Huntley hearing.
4. Whether the confessions of Pereira and Cruz were involuntary because they were made under the misapprehension that the victim was still alive.

Holding

1. No, because the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and considered the merits of the coram nobis applications, thus negating any potential harm from the alleged unequal treatment.
2. No, because Terry failed to move to suppress the confession or object to its admission at trial.
3. No, because the Court previously considered and rejected the demand for a Huntley hearing on direct appeal.
4. No, because even if the District Attorney had withheld information about the victim’s death, mere deception, without a promise or threat, is insufficient to render a confession involuntary.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that since it had granted leave to appeal and considered the merits of the defendants’ coram nobis applications, they were not aggrieved by the alleged equal protection violation in Section 517(3). Addressing the merits of Terry’s claim, the Court noted that he failed to preserve the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument by not moving to suppress the confession or objecting to its admission at trial. Regarding Terry’s request for a Huntley hearing, the Court pointed out that this issue had already been raised and rejected on direct appeal. As for Pereira and Cruz, the Court held that their confessions were not involuntary, even if they were unaware of the victim’s death, because mere deception, absent any promise or threat, does not render a confession involuntary. The Court cited People v. McQueen, stating, “[T]he law is well settled that in the absence of such factors mere deception is not enough.” The Court emphasized that no promise or threat was made to the appellants.