People v. Tillman

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tillman

420 N.E.2d 94, 52 N.Y.2d 1019, 438 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2250

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 420 N.E.2d 94 (People v. Tillman) 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. Tillman, 420 N.E.2d 94, 52 N.Y.2d 1019, 438 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2250 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

It is undisputed that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he was questioned by the police and the police were aware of such representation. Hence, defendant could not waive counsel except in counsel’s presence. (People v Skinner, 52 NY2d 24.) From the record before us, it cannot be concluded that a valid waiver which contemplated questioning in the absence of counsel took place when defendant and his attorney consented to the polygraph examination. This being so, the statements elicited from defendant in the absence of counsel by Investigator Brandstetter and Sergeant Wood immediately prior to the anticipated administration of the polygraph examination should have been suppressed.

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

Order reversed, etc.

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 reversed and a new trial ordered.

It is undisputed that defendant was represented by counsel at the time he was questioned by the police and the police were aware of such representation. Hence, defendant could not waive counsel except in counsel’s presence. (People v Skinner, 52 NY2d 24.) From the record before us, it cannot be concluded that a valid waiver which contemplated questioning in the absence of counsel took place when defendant and his attorney consented to the polygraph examination. This being so, the statements elicited from defendant in the absence of counsel by Investigator Brandstetter and Sergeant Wood immediately prior to the anticipated administration of the polygraph examination should have been suppressed.

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

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 N.E.2d 94, 52 N.Y.2d 1019, 438 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tillman-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack