People v. Tillman

420 N.E.2d 94, 52 N.Y.2d 1019, 438 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2250
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 24, 1981·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

420 N.E.2d 94 (People v. Tillman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gates
153 A.D.2d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Loll
115 Misc. 2d 267 (New York County Courts, 1982)