People v. Rastelli, 37 N.Y.2d 240 (1975)
r
r
Statements made by a coconspirator during the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible against all other coconspirators as an exception to the hearsay rule and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
r
r
Summary
r
Philip Rastelli was convicted of conspiracy and criminal usury based on evidence that he organized and financed a criminal usury enterprise. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of William Murray, a former bail bondsman, and taped conversations between Murray and Rastelli’s codefendants. Rastelli argued that the admission of statements made by his coconspirators violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule is a long-standing exception that does not violate the right to confrontation when the statements are made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
r
r
Facts
r
William Murray needed money and sought a $5,000 loan from Joe Lombardi. Lombardi arranged a partial loan of $1,500 through Frank Andosca, Tony Di Gregario, and Thomas Sala, with a high weekly interest rate. Sala introduced Murray to Rastelli, who provided the remaining $3,500. Murray made weekly interest payments for several months. Murray then referred other borrowers to the group, with Rastelli receiving a portion of the interest due to it being “his money.” Suffolk County detectives later equipped Murray with recording devices, capturing incriminating conversations between Murray and the codefendants, but not with Rastelli himself.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Rastelli was charged and convicted of conspiracy in the third degree and multiple counts of criminal usury. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the admission of his coconspirators’ statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Rastelli appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Rastelli’s conviction for conspiracy and criminal usury.
r
2. Whether the admission of Murray’s testimony regarding conversations he had with Rastelli’s codefendants violated Rastelli’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because the evidence established Rastelli as the organizer and financier of the usury enterprise, directly participating in at least one loan and being implicated by his coconspirators.
r
2. No, because the statements of a coconspirator made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible against all coconspirators as an exception to the hearsay rule and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to prove Rastelli’s involvement in the conspiracy and usury scheme. The court emphasized that Rastelli was identified by his coconspirators and directly participated in the loan to Murray. Regarding the confrontation clause issue, the court relied on the established New York rule that “the acts and declarations of one coconspirator which occur while the conspiracy is in progress and which are in furtherance of the common scheme are admissible and provable as to all other coconspirators as part of the res gestae and as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.” The court distinguished Bruton v. United States, noting that Bruton did not address recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court also cited Dutton v. Evans, where the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia statute similar to New York’s coconspirator rule. The Court stated that the ruling in Dutton indicates that the Supreme Court does