People v. Jones

21 A.D.3d 429, 799 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8413
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 8, 2005·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered April 10, 2002, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials is granted, and a new trial is ordered.

Once a suspect in custody unequivocally requests counsel, he may not be questioned further in the absence of an attorney (see People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838 [1995]; People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 [1980]). Whether a particular request 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, manner of expression, and the particular words used by him (see People v Mitchell, 2 NY3d 272 [2004]; People v Bacalocostantis, 121 AD2d 812, 814 [1986]). Here, the defendant’s statements, viewed in context, articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney (see Davis v United States, 512 US 452 [1994]; see also People v Lubanski, 148 AD2d 947, 948 [1989]). In view of this finding, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress his statements should have been granted (see People v Esposito, 68 NY2d 961 [1986]). Since the error in admitting the defendant’s confession was not harmless, we reverse and order a new trial (see People v Jones, 61 AD2d 264, 268 [1978], affd 47 NY2d 528 [1979]).

[430]*430The defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of the foregoing determination. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Jones, 21 A.D.3d 429, 799 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

21 A.D.3d 429 (People v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lipka
2024 NY Slip Op 05153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. Arneo
2024 NY Slip Op 50522(U) (Webster Justice Court, 2024)
People v. Harris
2019 NY Slip Op 53943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Johnson
49 Misc. 3d 518 (New York County Courts, 2015)
People v. Higgins
124 A.D.3d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Jemmott
116 A.D.3d 1244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Hernandez
40 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)