You are here: / / Violation of Right to Counsel Deemed Harmless Error
, ,

Violation of Right to Counsel Deemed Harmless Error

The Second Department noted that a violation of a defendant’s right to counsel is subject to a harmless error analysis.  Here the police were contacted by an attorney who told the police he was representing the defendant and not to question him if and when he is apprehended.  The court determined defendant’s right to counsel was violated when the police questioned him, but found the error harmless:

The right to counsel attaches, inter alia, when an attorney who is retained to represent a suspect enters the matter under investigation … . When an attorney enters a case to represent the accused, the police may not question the accused about that matter regardless of whether the person is in police custody … . “An attorney enters’ a case by actually appearing or directly communicating with the police by telephone” … . The issue of whether an [*2]attorney has entered a case is not dependent upon whether that attorney has been personally retained by the defendant, or has instead been retained by a member of the defendant’s family … . * * *

A violation of the indelible right to counsel does not automatically constitute reversible error. Instead it is reviewed under the harmless error doctrine for constitutional violations … . Constitutional errors are “considered harmless when, in light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the jury’s verdict” … . If no such possibility exists, the error is deemed to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Ellis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03530, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE UPON TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEVIATION FROM THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT IN ITS AWARD OF PENDENTE LITE CHILD SUPPORT, CASE REMITTED.
Former Parking Enforcement Officer Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether Town Abolished Her Civil Service Position in Bad Faith
WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE; THE PRIOR RAPE (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COUNTY COURT’S LEVEL THREE DESIGNATION) STEMMED FROM AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM WHO WAS UNABLE TO CONSENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER AGE (SECOND DEPT).
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
“Substantial Evidence” Standard of Court Review Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating the Legality of the Police... Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense...