You are here: / ADMISSIONS

Tag Archive for: ADMISSIONS

Detective’s Strongly Urging Defendant to Make a Statement Did Not Render Statement Involuntary

The First Department determined the detective’s urging defendant to make a statement did not render defendant’s statement involuntary:

…[P]rior to administering Miranda warnings, for a period of approximately 20 minutes, [the detective] urged defendant to talk to the police and “gave him several reasons why he should.” The detective properly conveyed to defendant that he knew defendant was involved in the crime, stating “point blank” that the evidence against defendant was strong, including videotape and eyewitness evidence. He urged defendant to take advantage of “your chance” to speak before the other suspects implicated him … . The detective also told defendant that cooperation could be beneficial and that the detective would “call the D.A.” once defendant “put down” his story. After defendant indicated that he wanted to talk, he was read his Miranda rights, waived them, and proceeded to make several written statement and one videotaped statement.There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant’s will was overborne or that the detective’s preliminary remarks tricked, cajoled or threatened him into waiving his Miranda rights. People v Rutledge, 2014 NY Slip Op 02885, 1st Dept 4-29-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Statement that He Was Thinking About Talking to an Attorney, Coupled With the Officer’s Interpretation of that Statement as a Request for Counsel, Rendered Invalid Defendant’s Subsequent Agreement to Speak with the Officer without an Attorney Present

The Third Department determined that stopping the defendant, asking him questions, patting him down, and searching a nearby vehicle (in which a loaded firearm was found) were supported by what the officer was told by persons who had just flagged down the officer.  The officer (Van Allen) was told the defendant had threatened one of the persons who flagged him down with a weapon and the defendant had been driving the van that was subjected to the warrantless search.  Subsequently, the defendant told the officer “I am thinking of talking to an attorney,” after which the office stopped questioning him.  Later, when the defendant told the officer he wished to speak with him, and the officer asked if he was willing to answer questions without an attorney present, the defendant said “yes.”  The Third Department determined, in part because the officer interpreted defendant’s statement that he was thinking about talking to an attorney as a request for an attorney, the defendant’s subsequent statement should have been suppressed:

Phrases such as “I think” or “maybe” do not necessarily establish that a request for counsel is uncertain or equivocal … . The relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable police officer would have understood the statement in question as a request for an attorney … . Although this is an objective standard, the fact that an officer did, in fact, treat a defendant’s request as an assertion of the right to counsel is properly taken into account in assessing what a reasonable police officer would have believed … . Here, despite the allegedly sarcastic tone of defendant’s initial statement, VanAllen indicated that he understood it as a request for counsel by promptly ceasing his inquiries. Further, when VanAllen later twice asked whether he had requested counsel, defendant confirmed without any equivocation that he had. Under these circumstances, a reasonable police officer would have understood that defendant had asserted his right to counsel … . Accordingly, defendant’s alleged waiver was ineffective, and his statements following the initial request should have been suppressed. People v Jemmott, 2014 NY Slip Op 02630, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Deception Used By Interrogators Rendered Confession Involuntary As a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, as a matter of law, defendant’s confession had been coerced by impermissible deception. The confession was suppressed and a new trial ordered. The interrogators told the defendant (1) his wife would be arrested if he did not confess to responsibility for injuries to their child and (2) disclosure of the circumstances of the injury was necessary to allow the doctors to save the child’s life (the child already had been declared brain-dead):

It is the People's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements of a defendant they intend to rely upon at trial are voluntary … . To do that, they must show that the statements were not products of coercion, either physical or psychological …, or, in other words that they were given as a result of a “free and unconstrained choice by [their] maker” … . The task is the same where deception is employed in the service of psychologically oriented interrogation; the statements must be proved, under the totality of the circumstances … — necessarily including any potentially actuating deception — the product of the maker's own choice. The choice to speak where speech may incriminate is constitutionally that of the individual, not the government, and the government may not effectively eliminate it by any coercive device. It is well established that not all deception of a suspect is coercive, but in extreme forms it may be. Whether deception or other psychologically directed stratagems actually eclipse individual will, will of course depend upon the facts of each case, both as they bear upon the means employed and the vulnerability of the declarant. There are cases, however, in which voluntariness may be determined as a matter of law — in which the facts of record permit but one legal conclusion as to whether the declarant's will was overborne … . This, we believe, is such a case. What transpired during defendant's interrogation was not consonant with and, indeed, completely undermined, defendant's right not to incriminate himself — to remain silent. People v Thomas, 18, CtApp 2-20-14

 

,

Questioning of Defendant Did Not Constitute “Custodial Interrogation”

The Third Department determined County Court should not have suppressed defendant’s statements as the product of custodial interrogation. The police investigation had led to defendant’s IP address being associated with accessing child pornography on the Internet. The investigator went to defendant’s place of employment and asked the defendant to accompany him to the police station, which the defendant agreed to do:

The testimony … revealed that defendant was brought to a room at the police station where he was interviewed for a total of no more than 30 minutes. During the brief period that preceded the Miranda warnings, defendant was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner and the investigators did not do anything to convey that defendant was not free to leave … . Moreover, the two questions that preceded the Miranda warnings – the first asked defendant for his address and the second inquired into defendant’s Internet service – were investigatory, as opposed to accusatory. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of County Court’s determinations that [the interrogating officer] was “frank, candid, and trustworthy and [that] his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility,” we find that the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s pre-Miranda statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation… . People v Henry, 106048, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

, ,

Impeachment of Defendant With a Statement Made by Defendant’s Attorney Deemed Proper

The First Department determined the impeachment of the defendant with a statement made by the defendant’s attorney at arraignment was proper:

The court properly admitted a statement made at arraignment by defendant’s counsel, who was also trial counsel, to impeach defendant after he testified to a different version of the events … At the arraignment, the attorney stated that defendant was the source of the information, and the attorney was clearly acting as defendant’s authorized agent when she provided this information to the arraignment court for her client’s benefit …, notwithstanding her assertion at trial that she had inaccurately conveyed her client’s version of the incident. Introduction of the statements did not require the People to call counsel as a witness against her client … , and the People never sought to do so. People v Ortiz, 2014 NY Slip Op 00616, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

,

References to Counsel Did Not Constitute an Unequivocal Request for Counsel

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s references to an attorney did not amount to an unequivocal request for counsel such that questioning should cease:

The right to counsel attaches, inter alia, “when a person in custody requests to speak to an attorney or when an attorney who is retained to represent the suspect enters the matter under investigation” … .  Here, defendant did not ask to speak to an attorney at any point during the police interrogation.  Defendant’s statements to the effect that he had an attorney and his questions whether he should have an attorney present were not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel … .  Further, defendant failed to “present[] evidence establishing that he was in fact represented by counsel at the time of interrogation, as defendant contended” … .  Although defendant indicated that he had a lawyer in connection with his marital separation, we conclude that the lawyer “was not retained ‘in the matter at issue’ ” … .  Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” … . People v Henry, 1096, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Invocation of Right to Counsel When Not in Custody Can Be Withdrawn Without Attorney Present

The Third Department determined defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel when he was not in custody (on September 4, 2004) could be withdrawn without an attorney present and did not, therefore, require the suppression of subsequent statements made three weeks later:

The right to counsel indelibly attaches in two limited situations – where formal judicial proceedings against a defendant have commenced and where an uncharged defendant, who is in custody, has retained or requested an attorney … .  However, “[a] suspect who is not in custody when he or she invokes the right to counsel can withdraw the request and be questioned by the police” … .  As defendant was not in custody at the time he invoked his right to counsel on September 4, 2009, he was free to withdraw that request or waive such right and speak with the police without having an attorney present – particularly in view of the approximately three weeks that elapsed between his initial request for an attorney and his subsequent statements to law enforcement … . People v Cade, 103443, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

,

Emergency Doctrine Applied—Statements Made to Police and Overheard by Police Not Suppressible

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to suppress certain statements made by the defendant to the police and to a friend in the presence of the police under the emergency doctrine. [The concurring judge felt the emergency was over when defendant spoke to his friend and his prior request for counsel rendered those statements suppressible. The majority held that the conversation with the friend was not police interrogation because there was no police involvement and the conversation was not a ploy by the police to elicit information from the defendant.] When the police encountered the defendant his clothes had wet blood on them and blood was found in defendant’s vehicle. The emergency doctrine applied because the police were justified in questioning the defendant to determine if someone was injured and needed help:

As a general rule, a person who is in custody cannot be questioned without first receiving Miranda warnings or after the right to counsel attaches … .  There are exceptions to these principles, one of which is referred to as the “emergency doctrine” … . It recognizes that the Constitution “is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger” …, thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation … .  We have explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … .  People v Doll, 141, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements

The Fourth Department sent the case back to the suppression court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of statements that had not been included in the initial 710.30 notice provided in connection with a prior indictment that had been dismissed. The statements were included in the 710.30 notice provided in connection with the superseding indictment. The Fourth Department determined the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly refused to preclude the additional statements included in the CPL 710.30 notice served by the People after the superseding indictment was filed … .  “Those [statements] were not referenced in the CPL 710.30 notice that was served in connection with the original indictment, but the record establishes that the People filed the superseding indictment out of necessity after the court dismissed . . . the original indictment” … .  We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the admissibility of the additional statements without reopening the Huntley hearing and affording defendant a further opportunity to contest their admissibility.  The court concluded that the statements were spontaneously made and therefore not subject to suppression.  At the time of the Huntley hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial indictment, however, the only issue before the court with respect to the additional statements was whether they should be precluded on the ground that they had not been included in the first CPL 710.30 notice.  Consequently, inasmuch as the voluntariness of the additional statements was not at issue at that time, defendant had no reason or opportunity to explore the issues of spontaneity or the effect of the previously-given Miranda warnings, or to raise any other issues regarding the admissibility of those statements.  Thus, “the hearing must be reopened” to afford him that opportunity… . People v Roberts, 945, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial

The Second Department determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to introduce at trial statements made by the defendant in plea negotiations (the error was deemed harmless however):

The defendant and the People executed an agreement, whereby they agreed that the People could introduce those statements against the defendant at a trial, inter alia, “to rebut any evidence” offered by him or on his behalf. At the trial, the Supreme Court found that the defendant had triggered this provision of the agreement and permitted the People to introduce the subject statements.

Statements made during the course of plea negotiations can be used against a defendant only if the People specifically bargained for that…. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly found that the defendant’s trial attorney offered evidence and raised factual issues which triggered the agreement… .  People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05473, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

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