People v. Dunbar
| Decision Date | 28 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 169, 170.,s. 169, 170. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jermaine DUNBAR, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Collin F. Lloyd–Douglas, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Barket, Marion, Epstein & Kearon, LLP, Garden City (Donna Aldea of counsel), and Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Ryan, James C. Quinn and Robert J. Masters of counsel), for appellant in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Allegra Glashausser and Leila Hill of counsel), for respondents in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Steven B. Wasserman of counsel), for The Legal Aid Society, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.
New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Taylor Pendergrass, Christopher Dunn and Corey Stoughton of counsel), and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Ezekiel Edwards and Brandon Buskey of counsel), for New York Civil Liberties Union and another, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Barbara S. Gillers, New York University School of Law, New York City, and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York City (Eugene M. Gelernter and Amy N. Vegari of counsel), for Legal Ethics Bureau at New York University School of Law, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Frank A. Sedita III, Buffalo, Morrie I. Kleinbart, Staten Island, and Donna Milling, Buffalo, for District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Beginning in 2007, the Queens County District Attorney implemented a central booking prearraignment interview program, launched in conjunction with the initiative to videotape interrogations. The program consisted of a structured, videotaped interview conducted by two members of the District Attorney's staff (an assistant district attorney and a detective investigator [DI] ) with a suspect immediately prior to arraignment. During this interview, the DI delivered a scripted preface or “preamble” to the Miranda warnings that, among other things, informed the suspect that “this is your opportunity to tell us your story,” and “your only opportunity” to do so before going before a judge. After being so cautioned, defendants Jermaine Dunbar (Dunbar) and Collin F. Lloyd–Douglas (Lloyd–Douglas) made statements in their respective interviews, which they later sought to suppress.
We hold that the preamble undermined the subsequently-communicated Miranda warnings to the extent that Dunbar and Lloyd–Douglas were not “ ‘adequately and effectively’ advised of the choice [the Fifth Amendment] guarantees” against self-incrimination (Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 611, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 [2004], quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 [1966] ) before they agreed to speak with law enforcement authorities.
On April 23, 2009, at 12:40 p.m. , Dunbar entered a money wiring and office services store in Queens where a lone cashier was working at the time. He threatened the cashier with what appeared to be a gun and demanded that she turn over money. Locked in a plexiglass enclosure, the cashier threw herself to the floor, called 911 and pressed the distress button. Thus thwarted, Dunbar fled in a waiting black livery car with New Jersey license plates. He was apprehended less than five minutes later when police officers patrolling in the area spotted the car. The cashier identified Dunbar as the would-be robber in a showup soon after. She had told the police that the perpetrator was a thin black man who wore a blue and white striped shirt and a hat, and the police discovered these items and an imitation pistol on the floor of the getaway car. Dunbar was arrested at 12:59 p.m. and brought to central booking in Queens.
About 23 hours after he was taken into custody, at 12:03 p.m. on April 24, 2009, Dunbar was interviewed by a DI and an assistant district attorney. The Assistant District Attorney described for Dunbar the charges he would be facing when he went to court, including the date, time and place of the crimes alleged. The DI then informed Dunbar that She then delivered the preamble, advising Dunbar as follows:
The DI continued without a break, following a script, next informing Dunbar that “[t]his entire interview is being recorded with both video and sound”; and “I'm going to read you your rights now, and then you can decide if you want to speak with us, O.K.?” She then advised “You have the right to be arraigned without undue delay; that is, to be brought before a judge, to be advised of the charges against you, to have an attorney assigned to or appointed for you, and to have the question of bail decided by the court”; gave the Miranda warnings; and, finally, asked “Now that I have advised you of your rights, are you willing to answer questions?” Dunbar indicated his understanding of each warning as it was given, and his willingness to continue the interview.
When the DI asked Dunbar “what happened,” he related that a man named Pete had told him about “robbing this place.” Dunbar twice interrupted the questioning to express puzzlement as to how the interview
was helping him. He remarked that he “want[ed] to work around this,” and asked if he would be talking to “the D.A.” next. Dunbar was told that the next person he would be speaking to was his lawyer. The Assistant District Attorney and DI explained that it was their job to determine if there was anything Dunbar needed them to investigate, and to find out his side of the story. Dunbar responded that his side of the story was that he was forced by Pete and “Ralphy” (the driver of the livery cab) to rob the store.
After Dunbar was indicted for second-degree attempted robbery (Penal Law §§ 160.10[1] ; 110.00), fourth-degree criminal mischief (Penal Law § 145.00 [1 ] ) and other crimes, he made a motion to suppress. As relevant to this appeal, he argued that his videotaped statement was not voluntary and that he had not been adequately advised of his Miranda rights. After a hearing, the suppression court denied the motion, reasoning that, in view of the totality of the circumstances, Dunbar's statement was voluntarily made after a valid Miranda waiver and before his right to counsel attached under New York law.
At Dunbar's jury trial, the cashier identified him as the perpetrator and police testimony established that he had been arrested within minutes of the robbery. Additionally, the jurors were shown both surveillance video depicting Dunbar at the store and the videotaped interview. Dunbar was convicted of attempted robbery and criminal mischief, the two remaining counts of the indictment. On May 20, 2010, Supreme Court sentenced him as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of from 17 years to life. Dunbar appealed.
On January 30, 2013, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed, concluding that the preamble “add[ed] information and suggestion ... which prevent[ed] [the Miranda warnings] from effectively conveying to suspects their rights,” creating a “muddled and ambiguous” message (104 A.D.3d 198, 207, 958 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2d Dept.2013] ). In this regard, the court rejected the argument, advanced by the People, that the effect of the preamble had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual experience and circumstances of each suspect. In the Appellate Division's view, such case-by-case determination, while relevant to the voluntariness of a waiver, was irrelevant to the question of whether Miranda warnings were properly administered in the first place (id. at 210, 958 N.Y.S.2d 764 ). The court further determined that the error in admitting the videotaped statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, and so ordered a new trial. A Judge of this Court granted the People's application for leave to appeal (21 N.Y.3d 942, 968 N.Y.S.2d 4, 990 N.E.2d 138 [2013] ), and we now affirm.
On the evening of September 6, 2005, Lloyd–Douglas got into an argument with P.D. with whom he was romantically involved. P.D. testified that the next morning, Lloyd–Douglas attacked her with a hammer as she left for work from the apartment she and Lloyd–Douglas shared. P.D. suffered grievous injuries, including a fractured skull. Ignoring P.D.'s pleas to call an ambulance, Lloyd–Douglas waited around in the apartment for three or four hours before leaving and, according to P.D., he took her phone, money and identification with him. She managed to crawl to her bedroom and call 911. After being transported to the hospital, P.D. underwent emergency surgery to remove bone fragments and damaged parts of her brain; P.D.'s injuries left her with difficulty talking, understanding, balancing, standing and walking, and required additional surgery and extensive physical therapy.
Lloyd–Douglas was apprehended about three years after this incident, on June 12, 2008. While at central booking in Queens, he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunbar
...24 N.Y.3d 30423 N.E.3d 946998 N.Y.S.2d 6792014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07293The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellantv.Jermaine DUNBAR, Respondent.The People of the State of New York, Appellantv.Collin F. Lloyd–Douglas, Respondent.Court of Appeals of New York.Oct. 28, 2014.998 N.Y.S.2d 680Barket......