People v. Portelli, 15 N.Y.2d 235 (1965)

The testimony of a witness at trial is admissible, even if the witness previously made a coerced pretrial statement, provided the coercion is disclosed to the jury for assessing the witness’s credibility and veracity.

Summary

Richard Melville, a witness for the prosecution, testified against Portelli, implicating him in a felony murder. During cross-examination, Melville admitted that he initially denied knowing anything about the crime but later confessed to the police after being severely beaten and tortured. Despite the alleged coercion, Melville maintained that his testimony in court was truthful. The defense argued that Melville’s testimony should have been stricken due to the prior coercion. The New York Court of Appeals held that the testimony was admissible, as the jury was made aware of the alleged coercion and could assess Melville’s credibility. The court strongly condemned the police misconduct but affirmed the conviction, stating that the witness’s trial testimony was distinct from a coerced confession from the defendant.

Facts

Two police officers were shot and killed during a robbery in Brooklyn on May 18, 1962.
Portelli was implicated in the homicides by Richard Melville, a small-time criminal.
Melville testified that Portelli confessed to participating in the robbery and shooting the officers.
Melville admitted that he initially denied knowledge of the crime to the police but later confessed after being held overnight and allegedly beaten and tortured.

Procedural History

Portelli was tried and convicted of felony murder.
On appeal, Portelli argued that Melville’s testimony should have been excluded because it was the product of police coercion.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Issue(s)

Whether a witness’s testimony at trial is admissible when the witness previously made a coerced statement to the police implicating the defendant, but testifies that their trial testimony is truthful.

Holding

Yes, because the fact of the earlier coercion was disclosed to the jurors, allowing them to assess the witness’s veracity and credibility and determine whether the testimony given in open court was truthful and worthy of consideration.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between a coerced confession from a defendant, which is inadmissible, and the testimony of a witness who claims their trial testimony is truthful despite a prior coerced statement.
The court emphasized that the jury was informed of the alleged coercion and had the responsibility to determine the witness’s credibility.
The court cited Wigmore on Evidence, stating that the requirements of law are met if the prior coercion is disclosed to the jury.
The court stated: “While the latter [coerced confession from the defendant] will be excluded as a matter of law, the testimony of a witness who, although previously forced to make a pretrial statement, asserts that his testimony at the trial is truthful is for the consideration and appraisal of the jury.”
The court strongly condemned the police misconduct but found that it did not warrant the exclusion of the witness’s testimony. The court noted that other avenues existed to address the allegations of police brutality.