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
Felony Convictions in Other Jurisdictions Need Not Have a New-York-Felony Counterpart to Be Considered Under the Persistent Felony Offender Statute
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE BUILT THE BRIDGE, THE VILLAGE NEVER IMPLEMENTED THE PROCEDURES IN THE VILLAGE CODE FOR ASSUMING CONTROL OVER THE BRIDGE, THEREFORE THE TOWN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR (CT APP).
A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).
THE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 3203(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES A PROPORTIONAL REFUND WHEN THE INSURED DIES DURING THE PREMIUM PERIOD (CT APP).
Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
There Is No Cause of Action for “Negligent Handling” of a Dog in New York
NO OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS ALLEGED, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

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 © 2025 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...