People Ex Rel. Rao v. Adams, 296 N.Y. 231

People Ex Rel. Rao v. Adams

296 N.Y. 231 | NY | 1947

Lead Opinion

By resort to a writ of habeas corpus, a relator, be he defendant or witness, is entitled to the constitutional protection against being held unreasonably or in excessive bail. (N.Y. Const., art. I, § 5.) Relief will be granted, however, only to prevent invasion of constitutional right, not because of difference of opinion as to the amount fixed.

In view of the facts here presented — for instance, the seriousness of the crime under investigation, murder; the character, reputation, background and extensive criminal records of relators; their relationship to others against whom they may be called to testify; the possibility of flight to avoid giving testimony; the difficulty, if not impossibility, of procuring their return if they do leave the State — in view, we say, of those facts among others, there was sufficient before the Judge of the Court of General Sessions to permit him, in the exercise of discretion, to fix the bail at $250,000 (Code Crim. Pro., § 618-b). While it is urged that such amount is high, it may not properly be said — on the record before us — that it was excessive as matter of law. (See People ex rel. Rothensies v.Searles, 229 App. Div. 603.) People ex rel. Lobell v.McDonnell (296 N.Y. 109), neither supports nor suggests a contrary view. As we there indicated, the reasonableness of bail in any case depends upon examination of the particular record. Evidence such as was here adduced was not there furnished.

Order affirmed, without costs, but without prejudice to the institution of any proceedings wherein relators may raise the question of undue or prolonged detention. That matter was pressed upon us by relators upon this appeal, but the People are entitled to an opportunity to submit evidence bearing on that issue.

Dissenting Opinion

"Excessive bail shall not be required * * * nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained" (N.Y. Const., art. I, § 5).

Each of these relators has been held in jail for three months, in default of $250,000 bail, as a "material witness" under *235 section 618-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fixing of the bail at that extraordinary figure was made at a hearing in the Court of General Sessions. At that hearing there was a prima facie showing that each relator was "a necessary and material witness for the people in a criminal action". There was nothing in the record of that hearing, however, to form a basis for the exaction of bail of a quarter of a million dollars, for each relator. If that bail be reasonable on this bare showing, then equal justification exists for requiring a million dollars, or any multiple thereof. Such an arbitrary determination was held illegal in People ex rel. Lobell v. McDonnell (296 N.Y. 109), where the relator had been indicted for numerous felonies involving large sums. It was no less illegal here, where relators, being prospective witnesses only, not indicted or convicted, had an absolute right to be released on their undertaking to appear when the case should be called. If there be no limit to the bail, then a bond prohibitive in amount may always be demanded of a witness. In other words, section 618-b may be used simply to keep a witness locked up. Nothing in the language or history of the statute permits such a use of it. When, as here, there is besides the imposition of prohibitive bail, a subsequent detention for a long period, we have the very situation against which the State Constitution has set a positive ban. These relators, like all other citizens, are entitled to the protection of the Constitution.

The order below should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to the Special Term to hold a hearing at which there shall first be determined whether continued detention of the relators, or either of them, is legal, and then, if that first question be answered affirmatively, reasonable bail shall be ordered.

LEWIS, CONWAY, THACHER and FULD, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; DESMOND, J., dissents in memorandum in which LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., concurs; DYE, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc. *236