People v. Carter, 30 N.Y.2d 279 (1972)

A wife may validly consent to a search of the marital home, and evidence obtained is admissible against her husband, based on her own possessory rights rather than agency.

Summary

Carter was convicted of robbery based on eyewitness identifications and clothing seized from his home. He argued the clothing was illegally seized and the in-court identifications were tainted by a prior showup. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the wife’s consent validated the search, and the in-court identifications had an independent basis from the showup. The court reasoned that a wife’s consent to search her home is based on her own right to the property, not the ability to waive her husband’s rights, and that the trial court correctly determined the in-court identifications were independent of the prior showup.

Facts

Two robberies occurred in Utica, New York, in the summer of 1968. The defendant, Carter, was identified as the perpetrator of both a supermarket and a gas station robbery. Police obtained clothing from Carter’s home, including sunglasses, green pants, a white tee shirt, and a trench coat, similar to those worn by the robber. Carter consented to the police taking his shirt and trousers. His wife consented to a search of their apartment, which led to the seizure of the other items of clothing. Witnesses identified Carter in court as the robber, but it was revealed during cross-examination that they had previously identified him in a showup at the police station.

Procedural History

Carter was convicted by a jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Carter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing the clothing was illegally seized and the in-court identifications were tainted. The trial court previously denied Carter’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, finding the in-court identifications had an independent source.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the articles of clothing were illegally seized, requiring their suppression as evidence.
2. Whether the in-court identifications of the defendant were impermissibly tainted by a prior, improper showup identification procedure, requiring exclusion of the in-court identifications.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant’s wife validly consented to the search of their apartment and seizure of the clothing.
2. No, because the in-court identifications had an independent source, untainted by the earlier showup procedure.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the search and seizure, the court relied on the principle that a wife may consent to the search of the marital home, and such consent is valid even if the search uncovers evidence incriminating her husband. The court explicitly stated,