You are here: / CONFESSIONS

Tag Archive for: CONFESSIONS

,

Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that state evidentiary rules were violated by testimony, during the People’s case-in-chief, describing the defendant’s silence following some of the questions asked by the police during interrogation. The court noted that although there are (very) limited circumstances when a defendant’s silence, or failure to give a timely exculpatory explanation, can be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand, no such flexibility applies to the case-in-chief.  There can be many reasons for a defendant’s silence in response to a question, so the probative value of silence is limited.  On the other hand, there is a real danger a jury will interpret a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The error was not harmless as a matter of law–defendant’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered:

If silence could constitute an answer, then the People could meet their burden simply by asking a question. Moreover, evidence of a defendant’s selective silence “is of extremely limited probative worth” … . A defendant who agrees to speak to the police but refuses to answer certain questions may have the same legitimate or innocent reasons for refusing to answer as a defendant who refuses to speak to the police at all … . Furthermore, the potential risk of prejudice from evidence of a defendant’s selective silence is even greater than the risk to a defendant who chooses to remain totally silent. Jurors are more likely to construe a defendant’s refusal to answer certain questions as an admission of guilt if the defendant has otherwise willingly answered other police inquiries. The ambiguous nature and limited probative worth of a defendant’s selective silence is outweighed by the substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant from admission of such evidence … . Evidence of a defendant’s selective silence therefore generally may not be used by the People during their case-in-chief and may be used only as “a device for impeachment” of a defendant’s trial testimony in limited and unusual circumstances … .

The People’s use of defendant’s selective silence in this case was improper for another reason. In her opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that defendant did not admit or deny the accusations when he spoke to the detective. Furthermore, during direct examination of the detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony establishing not only that defendant did not answer when asked whether he had sex with the victim, but also that he did not deny it either. In addition to using defendant’s selective silence as a purported impeachment device during their direct case, the People also invited the jury to infer an admission of guilt from defendant’s failure to deny the accusations. The risk that the jury made such an impermissible inference is substantial where, as here, defendant selectively answered some police questions but not others, and the court refused to provide any curative instruction. The prosecutor’s comments regarding defendant’s selective silence during opening statements were improper, and the court erred in allowing testimony concerning defendant’s selective silence at trial, inasmuch as the comments and testimony allowed the jury to “draw an unwarranted inference of guilt” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 4-7-15

 

,

Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements

The Fourth Department determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial with respect to the charges related to unwarned statements he made to the police.  When an officer started to read the Miranda rights to the defendant he stopped the officer by saying he knew his rights.  The defendant thereafter made several statements in the absence of any Miranda warnings:

It is well settled that “[a]n individual taken into custody by law enforcement authorities for questioning must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights’ safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination” … . The Miranda warnings “are an absolute prerequisite to interrogation’ ” … . Here, the court concluded that defendant understood his rights based on the fact that he had been given Miranda warnings before he gave his August 16, 2010 statement [re: a different, unrelated offense]. A court, however, does not ” inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given’ ” … . Defendant’s statements made on November 17, 2010 must therefore be suppressed because the Miranda warnings were not given until after defendant was interrogated… . People v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 02623, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Recorded Conversation In Which Defendant Did Not Respond to Statements by Victim that He Had Broken Her Ribs Was Admissible

The First Department determined portions of a recorded phone call in which defendant did not respond to the victim’s statements that he had broker her ribs were admissible because a person in defendant’s position would have been expected to answer:

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a phone call placed by defendant to the victim while defendant was incarcerated, in which the victim repeatedly stated that defendant had broken her ribs. The record supports the court’s findings that defendant heard and understood the victim’s accusation, and that a person in defendant’s position would have been expected to answer … . Rather than directly addressing the victim’s statement, defendant repeatedly attempted to change the subject, such as by asking the victim whether she meant that he posed a “threat” to her. It is not dispositive that defendant asked the victim to repeat herself after the fourth out of five times she stated that he had broken her ribs, since defendant did not otherwise indicate that he was unable to hear or understood her. Although the phone call was recorded by the Department of Correction pursuant to a standard policy made known to all inmates, the rule excluding “silence in the face of police interrogation” … was not implicated, since defendant’s admissions by silence were made to a civilian. Moreover, the court’s thorough limiting instructions also minimized any potential unfair prejudice. People v Vining, 2015 NY Slip Op 02570, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

,

References to Defendant’s Prior Bad Acts in a Recorded Phone Call Were Not Inextricably Intertwined with Admissible Statements and Should Have Been Redacted—Conviction Reversed

The Fourth Department determined the inadmissible statements about defendant’s prior bad acts were not inextricably intertwined with the admissible portions of a recorded phone call.  The failure to redact the references to prior bad acts required reversal:

County Court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of prior bad acts of sexual abuse against the victim’s mother and another woman. With the assistance of the police, the victim’s mother recorded a telephone conversation between herself and defendant, and she made repeated references to the prior bad acts throughout the conversation in her attempt to have defendant admit to sexually abusing the victim. We conclude that the court erred in determining that the references to the prior bad acts were admissible because they were inextricably interwoven with the allegations against the victim. In the context of a recorded call, when references to prior bad acts in the conversation are “inextricably interwoven with the crime charged in the indictment,” the entire conversation “may be received in evidence . . . where . . . the value of the evidence clearly outweighs any possible prejudice” … . ” To be inextricably interwoven . . . the evidence must be explanatory of the acts done or words used in the otherwise admissible part of the evidence’ ” … . Here, we conclude that the disputed references were not explanatory of the rest of the conversation. The statements regarding defendant’s prior bad acts were numerous, but they could have been redacted from the transcript of the recorded call without making the statements regarding the victim incomprehensible … . In other words, the statements concerning the victim are “clearly understandable” by themselves and are “not dependent upon” the statements concerning defendant’s prior bad acts … . We further conclude that the prejudicial effect of those numerous references to the prior bad acts outweighed any probative value, and the references therefore should have been redacted … . People v Gibbs, 2015 NY Slip Op 02362, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless

The Second Department determined defendant’s pre-Miranda statements, as well as his post-Miranda written statement, should have been suppressed because the defendant was in custody and interrogated before he waived his right to remain silent.  Defendant had been stopped by two police cars, one of which cut off defendant’s lane of travel. Defendant then consented to going to the police station where he was placed in a locked room and subjected to accusatory questioning.  (The court ultimately determined the error was harmless, however):

Contrary to the suppression court’s determination, the statements made by the defendant at the police station should have been suppressed as the product of custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings. “Miranda warnings need not be given until both the elements of police custody’ and interrogation’ are present” … . The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact … . In deciding whether a defendant was in custody before receiving Miranda warnings, “the subjective beliefs of the defendant are not to be the determinative factor” … . Nor does the determination turn on the subjective intent of the police officer … . Rather, the test is “what a reasonable man [or woman], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant’s position” … . “[T]he term interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect” … .

Here, a reasonable, innocent person would not have believed that he or she was free to leave the police station at the time the defendant made his oral statements to the police … . Moreover, the questions by the police were accusatory in nature, rather than merely investigatory, and were designed to elicit an incriminating response … . Accordingly, the oral statements made by the defendant at the police station were the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and should have been suppressed. Furthermore, the written statement by the defendant, although created after Miranda warnings were issued, also should have been suppressed, as there was no attenuation between the statements that were obtained unlawfully and the written statement … . People v Reardon, 2015 NY Slip Op 00394, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

Father’s Recording of Defendant’s Berating and Threatening Father’s Child Admissible Under the “Vicarious Consent” Theory (Father Vicariously Consented, on Behalf of the Child, to the Recording)/Variance Between Jury Instruction and Charges in the Indictment Was Harmless Error–No Possibility Defendant Was Convicted of a Theory Not Encompassed by the Indictment

The Second Department applied a “vicarious consent” theory to reject the defendant’s argument that the father’s recording of the defendant berating and threatening the father’s child violated the eavesdropping statutes, Penal Law 250.05 and CPLR 4506. Father had called mother’s cell phone which mother answered without speaking. Father could hear the defendant speaking to the child over the phone and recorded the defendant’s words.  In addition to the “vicarious consent” discussion, he Second Department noted that a variance between the jury instructions and the charges in the indictment was harmless error because there was no possibility the guilty verdict was based upon a theory not in the indictment.  With respect to the “vicarious consent” to the recording, the court wrote:

While … Penal Law § 250.05 serves the strong public policy goal of protecting citizens from eavesdropping, we are not persuaded that the New York Legislature intended to subject parents to criminal penalties when, “out of concern for the bests interests of their minor child, they record that child’s conversations” … . Given the similarity between the federal wiretap statute and New York’s eavesdropping statute, and recognizing that the “vicarious consent” exemption is rooted on a parent’s need to act in the best interests of his or her child …, we deem it appropriate to adopt it as an exemption to Penal Law § 250.05.

Here, the People sufficiently demonstrated that the father had a “good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe” that it was necessary for the welfare of the infant to record the conversation …, such that he could consent to the recording on the infant’s behalf … . Accordingly, the “vicarious consent” exemption applies, and admission of the subject recording was not barred by CPLR 4506. People v Badalamenti, 2015 NY Slip Op 00384, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

,

Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury was allowed to hear a recording in which defendant refused to waive his right to remain silent and invoked his right to counsel. Under the facts, the error was not harmless. The Third Department directed that the portion of the recording which recounts defendant’s criminal history be redacted on retrial:

….[D]efendant is entitled to a new trial. During their case-in-chief, the People generally cannot introduce evidence that a defendant invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent or to obtain counsel … . At the trial here, the People played the recording of the police interview up to and including the portion in which defendant stated that he would not sign the line of the Miranda form indicating his willingness to speak to the detective, and defendant stated, “Let me have a lawyer.” This was improper because “it creates a prejudicial inference of consciousness of guilt” by letting the jury hear defendant invoke his constitutional rights … . People v Carey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00251, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Right to Counsel Not Invoked by Defendant’s Telling Police He Wanted to Speak to his Attorney Before He Signed Anything; Spontaneous Statements Made After Right to Counsel Attached Not Suppressible; Non-Communicative Parts of Video Not Suppressible; Limited Right to Counsel Re: Deciding to Submit to Chemical Test Not Invoked

The Third Department, in reversing (in part) County Court’s suppression of videotaped statements made by the defendant after a DWI arrest, dealt in some depth with several issues:  (1) the court noted that, although a defendant seeking a suppression hearing must make sworn factual allegations supporting the motion, CPL [Criminal Procedure Law] 710.60 “does not mandate summary denial of defendant’s motion even if the factual allegations are deficient” and the hearing was properly granted in this case under “principles of judicial economy;” (2) the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel by telling the police he wanted to speak to his attorney before he signed anything; (3) the defendant did invoke his right to counsel when he subsequently asked that he be allowed to call his attorney; (3) defendant’s spontaneous statements, even those made after right to counsel attached, were not suppressible; (4) defendant’s responses to questions about the chemical test and where he last had a drink were suppressible; (5) the portions of the videotape that did not contain any communication were not suppressible; and (6) although a defendant has a limited right to counsel for the purpose of deciding whether to submit to a chemical test, the defendant did not exercise that right before refusing the test. With regard to spontaneous statements and the “non-communicative” portions of the video, the court wrote:

With a few exceptions, the video reveals that defendant’s statements in the period preceding the reading of his Miranda rights were made without any triggering words or conduct by the police. As the officers played no role in soliciting them, these statements constitute spontaneous declarations and should not have been subject to suppression … . However, at three points following defendant’s successful invocation of his right to counsel, officers asked him questions that should reasonably have been anticipated to elicit responses. The first such exchange occurred between 03:47:49 a.m. and 03:48:10 a.m., when defendant responded after an officer asked him what he thought would occur as a result of refusing a chemical test. The second occurred between 03:50:01 a.m. and 03:50:09 a.m., when defendant confirmed his last drinking location in response to a question by one of the officers. The third occurred between 04:01:05 a.m. and 04:06:23 a.m., when an officer asked defendant several questions about chemical testing and the events of the evening. Defendant’s responses to these inquiries cannot be said to be spontaneous. Thus, his statements during these three time periods and the corresponding portions of the video were properly suppressed.

As to portions of the video in which defendant was not speaking, evidence obtained from a defendant following invocation of the right to counsel is subject to suppression where it constitutes “a communicative act that disclose[s] the contents of defendant’s mind” … . Generally, a defendant’s physical characteristics and appearance are not considered to be communicative in nature … . Here, portions of the video in which defendant is silent show only his physical condition and appearance and do not disclose any communicative statements made after he had invoked his right to counsel. Whether any of these video segments may ultimately be deemed admissible at trial depends on other considerations not presented here, but there is no basis for their suppression as communicative statements … . People v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 00253, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

, ,

Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel By Asking a Police Officer to Retrieve Defendant’s Lawyer’s Phone Number from Defendant’s Wallet—Subsequent Statements Should Have Been Suppressed/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Weapon Seized from Defendant’s Person Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed. Defendant, after he was read the Miranda rights, asked a police officer to retrieve the defendant’s lawyer’s phone number from the defendant’s wallet.  The court further found defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress the weapon seized from defendant’s person:

“Whether a particular request [for counsel] is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request including the defendant’s demeanor [and] manner of expression[,] and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” (People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839). Here, the testimony at the suppression hearing established that, before defendant was informed of his Miranda rights at the police station, defendant asked a police officer to retrieve the telephone number of defendant’s attorney from defendant’s wallet. The hearing testimony further established that an investigator acknowledged defendant’s request but asked defendant to continue speaking with the police. That testimony was confirmed by a videotaped interview submitted at the hearing as an exhibit. ” [V]iewed in context of the totality of circumstances, particularly with respect to events following [defendant’s request for his attorney’s phone number]’ ” … ,we conclude that defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and that his statements should have been suppressed  … .

We agree with defendant … that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s errors with respect to suppression … . We note that defense counsel moved to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s residence although there was no indication that any evidence was seized therefrom but failed to move to suppress the gun found on defendant’s person. The record establishes that defendant was arrested after a police officer observed defendant and three other individuals standing “approximately 8-10 houses away” from the location of reported gunfire. According to a police report, “[f]or officer safety purposes, [the officer] ordered [defendant and the other three individuals] to the ground and they were taken into custody,” and a police officer found defendant in possession of a loaded weapon. There is no indication in the record on appeal that the police had a founded suspicion that defendant and his companions were the source of the gunfire or were involved in any other criminal activity … . On the record before us, we conclude that there are no strategic reasons for moving to suppress evidence that did not exist while failing to move to suppress a gun that was seized from defendant’s person and that was the factual basis for the charges in the indictment … . We further conclude that defense counsel’s errors prejudiced defendant and deprived him of the right to effective assistance of counsel … . People v Barber, 2015 NY Slip Op 00058, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that defendant, who was represented by counsel in a pending criminal matter, should not have been questioned in the absence of counsel about another crime.  Defendant, in an attempt to gain leniency, told the police he knew that a friend had committed a stabbing. The police met with the defendant to “wire him up” for a meeting with his friend.  Defendant's attorney, Schwarz, knew defendant was meeting with the police for that purpose.  During the meeting, the defendant was questioned about the stabbing and eventually he admitted he had committed that crime.  He was then read his Miranda rights, which he waived.  The Court of Appeals held that none of the questioning about defendant's involvement with the stabbing should have be done without defendant's affirmative waiver of his right to counsel, in the presence of defendant's attorney:

Defendant relies on the rule, long established in New York, that “[o]nce an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel” … . The People respond that this rule does not apply here because the “proceeding” in which the police questioned defendant on …—their investigation of the supermarket stabbing ——was one that no attorney had entered. Schwarz, in the People's view, represented defendant only in the burglary case, about which he was not questioned.

We do not find this a viable distinction. The stabbing investigation cannot be neatly separated from Schwarz's representation of defendant in the burglary case. Defendant had pinned his hopes for a favorable result in the burglary case on his cooperation with the police investigation of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, Schwarz's duty to his client required him to concern himself with both cases.

Schwarz was not, of course, retained to defend the stabbing case: before the April 19 meeting, defendant had not been charged with the stabbing, and no such charge seemed likely. But Schwarz's obligation in defending the burglary case included an obligation to be alert to, and to avert if he could, the possibility that defendant's cooperation would hurt rather than help him. No responsible lawyer in Schwarz's situation would concern himself with the burglary case alone, indifferent to the disaster that might strike defendant if he incriminated himself in the stabbing.

We therefore conclude that defendant's right to counsel encompassed his conversations with police about the stabbing, as long as those conversations were part of an effort to obtain leniency in the burglary case in which Schwarz represented him. Thus, unless the right to counsel was waived, the police should not have questioned defendant about the stabbing in his lawyer's absence. People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08787, CtApp 12-17-14

 

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