People v. Colwell
| Decision Date | 09 July 1985 |
| Citation | 482 N.E.2d 1214,65 N.Y.2d 883,493 N.Y.S.2d 298 |
| Parties | , 482 N.E.2d 1214 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark S. COLWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 103 A.D.2d 169, 479 N.Y.S.2d 904, should be affirmed.
On April 19, 1982, police arrested defendant for harassment and learned from the records that he had been charged with burglary in 1981. Without asking defendant about the status of the burglary charge, investigators questioned him about two unrelated sex crimes which had been committed in February 1981 and April 1982. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant made incriminating statements as to both crimes. With respect to the 1981 burglary charge, defendant had entered a guilty plea on November 6, 1981, and at the time of the questioning, was represented by counsel on appeal from the burglary conviction. Defendant now argues that the police should be charged with knowledge that he was represented by counsel on the unrelated appeal. Accordingly, he claims, under People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709 he should not have been questioned in the absence of counsel.
Where an individual is actually represented on a pending charge brought to the attention of the police, custodial interrogation on any crime, even if unrelated, is prohibited (People v. Ferrara, 54 N.Y.2d 498, 507, 446 N.Y.S.2d 222, 430 N.E.2d 1275; People v. Rogers, supra ). The question here is whether this rule should be extended to the situation where the defendant is represented not on a "pending charge" but on an appeal from a criminal conviction. While we agree with the Appellate Division that it should not, we affirm the defendant's conviction on a different basis from that articulated below.
A primary concern underlying Rogers was that a defendant could incriminate himself on the pending charge, on which he is represented, even though the questions ostensibly concern unrelated charges. As this court noted, "it is the role of [the] defendant's attorney, not the State, to determine whether a particular matter will or will not touch upon the extant charge" (People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709, supra ). This same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pratt v. Upstate Correctional Facility
... ... Hudson testified that at about 9:25 p.m. on July 22, 1997, his ex-daughter-in-law told him that some people were fighting outside their apartment at 372 Hayward Avenue. T.303-304. Hudson went out onto the porch and saw two men and one woman standing on the ... E.g., People v. Colwell, 65 N.Y.2d 883, 482 N.E.2d 1214, 493 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1985) (holding that defendant's interest in extending New York's right to counsel rule set forth ... ...
- People v. Grimes
-
People v. Bing
... ... Hernandez, 70 N.Y.2d 833, 523 N.Y.S.2d 442, 517 N.E.2d 1328) and that police may eavesdrop on conversations between an informer and a suspect who has counsel on a pending charge (People v. Hauswirth, 60 N.Y.2d 904, 470 N.Y.S.2d 583, 458 N.E.2d 1260). In People v. Colwell, 65 N.Y.2d 883, 885, 493 N.Y.S.2d 298, 482 N.E.2d 1214, we refused to suppress statements about a new crime made while a prior crime on which defendant was represented was on appeal. In People v. Robles, 72 N.Y.2d 689, 536 N.Y.S.2d 401, 533 N.E.2d 240, we refused to suppress statements made by a ... ...
-
People v. Medina
... ... We find that the record amply supports the hearing court's judgment that the officer in this case had no "actual knowledge of the pending charges and was acting in good faith" ... In People v. Colwell, 65 N.Y.2d 883, 885, 493 N.Y.S.2d 298, 482 N.E.2d 1214, the Court of Appeals declined to extend what it described as "the right to counsel rule articulated in Rogers " (People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709) to a situation in which the defendant was represented on an ... ...