You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT...
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he was questioned about a murder while he was represented on an unrelated marijuana charge. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations and arrested when marijuana was found in the car he was driving, a black Hyundai with tinted windows.  An attorney was assigned for the marijuana charge.  A BlackBerry found in the car was subsequently traced to a robbery where a black Hyundai with tinted windows was seen. According to a witness to a shooting, unrelated to the robbery, the shooter arrived and sped away in a black Hyundai with tinted windows. Defendant, when he was represented only on the marijuana charge, was questioned about the robbery and the murder and admitted to being the get-away driver. Supreme Court allowed defendant’s statement about the murder in evidence and defendant was convicted of murder. The Appellate Division held that the statement about the murder should have been suppressed because the robbery and the marijuana charge were related and Supreme Court had suppressed the statement about the robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the proper analysis required looking at the marijuana charge and the murder, not the marijuana charge and the robbery. Because the marijuana charge was completely unrelated to the murder, questioning about the murder did not violate defendant’s right to counsel:

​Under Cohen [90 NY2d 632] the relevant comparison is between the unrepresented and the represented charges. The first category concerns whether “questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel”… . The purpose of the rule is to protect the right to counsel once it has attached; if the questioning on the unrepresented charge will inevitably lead to statements about the represented charge, the statements should be suppressed. However, if the relationship between the unrepresented and the represented charges is insufficient, then “discrete questioning [on the unrepresented charge] by a police officer mindful and respectful of the indelible attachment of defendant’s right to counsel [on the represented charge] would not [] create[] any serious risk of incriminating responses as to the latter crime[]” … . Thus, the question the Appellate Division should have considered is whether the murder charge was sufficiently related to the marijuana charge. No evidence in the record would support that claim; indeed, even [defendant] does not press it. People v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 04275, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, LTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))

You might also like
CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR BAIL; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT MAKING THE REQUIRED FLIGHT RISK DETERMINATION; DEFENDANT FILED A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; PETITION HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW SECURING ORDER (CT APP).
Motion for a Change of Venue Can Be Entertained in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Trials and Hearings Under the Mental Hygiene Law/Non-Final Order Which Necessarily Affects the Final Order Is Appealable
Consecutive Nature of Sentence is Collateral Consequence of Conviction
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP).
RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE.
THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HEAR THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE; A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN CONVICTION.
EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP).

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

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN... BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS...