People v. Griswold

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Griswold

444 N.E.2d 977, 58 N.Y.2d 633, 458 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3884

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 444 N.E.2d 977 (People v. Griswold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Griswold, 444 N.E.2d 977, 58 N.Y.2d 633, 458 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3884 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A new trial is warranted to resolve the issue of whether defendant invoked his right to counsel prior to making certain incriminating statements. In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213), we determined that the principle enunciated in People v Cunningham (49 NY2d 203), that once a suspect in custody requests the assistance of counsel he cannot be questioned further in the absence of an attorney, must be applied retroactively. Inasmuch as the defendant made a suppression motion in connection with his original trial, he may now assert his Cunningham argument on the appeal from his retrial (see People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 66).

In addition, we believe that the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested charge on the issue of voluntariness. Defendant sought to have the court charge that the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the defendant had asked for counsel could be considered by the jury in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s subsequent confession. The charge was relevant to an issue before the jury and we perceive no valid reason for its denial.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A new trial is warranted to resolve the issue of whether defendant invoked his right to counsel prior to making certain incriminating statements. In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213), we determined that the principle enunciated in People v Cunningham (49 NY2d 203), that once a suspect in custody requests the assistance of counsel he cannot be questioned further in the absence of an attorney, must be applied retroactively. Inasmuch as the defendant made a suppression motion in connection with his original trial, he may now assert his Cunningham argument on the appeal from his retrial (see People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 66).

In addition, we believe that the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested charge on the issue of voluntariness. Defendant sought to have the court charge that the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the defendant had asked for counsel could be considered by the jury in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s subsequent confession. The charge was relevant to an issue before the jury and we perceive no valid reason for its denial.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 N.E.2d 977, 58 N.Y.2d 633, 458 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-griswold-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack