24 N.Y.2d 666 (1969)

Fingerprint evidence obtained after an arrest is admissible at trial even if the legality of the arrest is questionable, provided the defendant fails to make a timely objection to the evidence’s admissibility based on the claim of unlawful arrest.

Summary

Patricia Gates was murdered in her apartment. Her estranged husband, the defendant, was convicted of first-degree murder based largely on fingerprint evidence found at the crime scene. The prosecution argued that Gates entered his wife’s apartment through a window and attacked her. On appeal, Gates argued that the fingerprint evidence should have been excluded because it was obtained following an unlawful arrest. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that because Gates failed to object to the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence on the grounds of an unlawful arrest at trial, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The court emphasized the importance of raising timely objections to allow the prosecution an opportunity to demonstrate the legality of the arrest.

Facts

Patricia Gates obtained a separation from her husband in June 1966, which included custody of their children. Gates made several threats against his wife, including a statement that she would not live to enjoy the children. Three days before her death, after a divorce decree was entered giving the mother permanent custody, Gates threatened her again. On September 7, 1966, Patricia Gates was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She told police at the scene she did not know who attacked her, but the attacker wore glasses. About 30 minutes after the stabbing, Gates appeared at a neighbor’s house. He was later arrested for failing to dim his headlights. Police found fingerprints on the bathroom window screen of Patricia’s apartment that matched Gates’ fingerprints.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the trial court. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether fingerprint evidence obtained after an arrest is admissible at trial when the defendant claims the arrest was unlawful, but failed to object to the evidence’s admissibility on that specific ground during the trial.

Holding

No, because the defendant failed to challenge the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence based on the grounds of unlawful arrest by a pre-trial motion to suppress or by objecting to the receipt of the evidence during trial. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis v. Mississippi, which held that fingerprint evidence is subject to Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections and must be excluded if it results from an illegal arrest. However, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, specifically that a defendant must make a timely objection to the admissibility of evidence. The court reasoned that because Gates did not object to the fingerprint evidence based on an unlawful arrest, the prosecution was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence justifying the arrest. The court stated: “Although the defendant now asserts that his arrest was unlawful, his failure to object to the use of the evidence on that ground, or even to intimate that such an issue was in the case, deprived the People of any opportunity to show the information in the possession of the police at the time of Gates’ arrest.” The court noted that the police may have had reasonable grounds for believing Gates had committed the crime at the time of the arrest, based on his prior threats. The court found the fingerprint evidence to be almost conclusive proof of guilt because the location of the prints on the window screen indicated that they could only have been made by a person seeking to enter the apartment from the outside. This evidence pointed strongly to the defendant’s guilt and excluded other reasonable hypotheses. By failing to properly raise the issue at trial, Gates forfeited his right to have the appellate court review the legality of the arrest in relation to the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence.