People v. Fuschino
| Citation | 450 N.E.2d 200,463 N.Y.S.2d 394,59 N.Y.2d 91 |
| Parties | , 450 N.E.2d 200 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael FUSCHINO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1983 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
We are asked to decide whether the actual knowledge of one police department that the defendant was represented on a prior unrelated criminal charge that was still pending constructively implies such knowledge to another separate police department for the purpose of invoking the defendant's right to counsel. A subsidiary issue is whether the police acted in a manner which isolated the defendant to the extent that he was deprived of his right to counsel.
Between August of 1979 and January of 1980, a former classmate of the defendant received 10 threatening letters signed with the defendant's name. Two of the letters contained small kitchen knives. Her family, concerned because she had previously received harassing telephone calls which they believed came from the defendant, intercepted the letters and turned them over to the State Police. A laboratory analysis conducted by the State Police revealed defendant's fingerprint on one of the letters. On the basis of this evidence, Trooper Hills, of the New York State Police, requested the Ballston Spa Village Police to bring the defendant to their headquarters. When they did so, Trooper Hills arrested the defendant for aggravated harassment. The defendant was fully advised of his constitutional rights, but did not request an attorney. He did, however, ask both the village and State Police if he could call his mother. The village police told him that the State Police would take care of his request. Trooper Hills testified that he told the defendant he would be allowed to make the call when they reached the State Police barracks. He also testified at the trial that he thought defendant had made his telephone call because he was seated in the interrogation room at a desk with a telephone on it and because defendant's parents arrived a short time later.
After stating that he did not want an attorney, defendant was questioned for approximately 45 minutes. He admitted sending the letters and a typed confession was prepared. Defendant signed the confession after reading it and adding, in his own handwriting, the explanation that "she didn't talk to me the physical threats would then occur". The State Police then proceeded to process the defendant and took him almost immediately for arraignment. His attorney was present at the arraignment.
Subsequently, the defendant sought to suppress his confession on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel because the arresting and interrogating officers had either actual or constructive knowledge that defendant was represented by an attorney in a pending unrelated criminal charge. Additionally, defendant argued that the failure to give him the opportunity to call his mother as requested of both police departments constituted an independent denial of his right to counsel.
At the hearing, Trooper Hills was questioned concerning his knowledge of any prior arrests of the defendant. He testified that in October, 1978 he had arrested the defendant on charges of harassment stemming from incidents between defendant and a classmate of the defendant at the high school, but that it was his understanding that those charges had been dismissed. When asked if the Ballston Spa police had informed him that they had arrested the defendant in December, 1979, he testified that he was uncertain whether he knew at the time of the arrest about the December charge, but that he had no knowledge that defendant was represented by counsel. The only affirmative piece of information he could recall being given by the local police was merely a general indication that problems continued to exist between the defendant and the victim's family.
Following the hearing, the motion to suppress was denied in all respects. The Judge found that the defendant had been advised of his rights and had voluntarily waived those rights, after which he made his statement. He also found that the defendant advised the Ballston Spa Police Chief and State Police Trooper Hills that he wanted an opportunity to call his parents and that the failure of the police agencies to abide by that request could constitute an infringement on defendant's right to counsel; but that on the totality of the circumstances in this case, it was clear that the defendant knew of his right to legal representation and did not at any time advise the police that he wanted to be represented by an attorney. Because the defendant had an attorney in another matter and familiarity with the legal system, the Judge ruled that his request to call his parents could not be interpreted as the equivalent of a request to call his attorney.
At the trial, testimony was given by members of both families concerning various incidents allegedly constituting harassment, both of and by the defendant. Trooper Hills testified that he had no knowledge of either the defendant's arrest the previous December or that he was represented by an attorney. He also adhered to his previous testimony that he believed the charges brought after his October, 1978 arrest of the defendant had been dismissed. Defendant was convicted of 10 counts of aggravated harassment and sentenced to three years' probation.
On appeal, defendant contended that the conduct of the State Police violated his right to counsel and a reversal was thus required. Defendant's assertions were based on several theories: First, that Trooper Hills and the officer who conducted the interrogation both knew of the 1978 charge and were thus under a duty to inquire if the charge was still pending and whether the defendant was represented by counsel; secondly, defendant contended that since the State Police requested the aid of the local police in arresting the defendant, that the State Police either had actual knowledge of the December, 1979 charge or such knowledge should be imputed to them because they made an effort to insulate themselves from the information which would have put them under an affirmative duty to inquire as to whether or not the defendant was represented by counsel. The defendant also argued that the refusal of the police to allow him to call his mother constituted an infringement on his constitutional right to an attorney.
The Appellate Division, 87 A.D.2d 716, 448 N.Y.S.2d 904, found that there was no basis to conclude that either officer had personal knowledge of the prior, pending charge. On the defendant's theory that this knowledge should be imputed to the State Police because of the actual knowledge the local police had, the court stated: (People v. Fuschino, 87 A.D.2d 716, 717, 448 N.Y.S.2d 904.) As to defendant's contention that he was denied his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. West
...of the prior pending charge (People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 117, 490 N.Y.S.2d 475, 480 N.E.2d 61; People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 98, 463 N.Y.S.2d 394, 450 N.E.2d 200). We permitted the police to accept at face value a defendant's claim that he was not represented (People v. Lucarano, ......
-
People v. Bing
...counsel had been violated (see, e.g., People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 112, 490 N.Y.S.2d 475, 480 N.E.2d 61; People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 98, 463 N.Y.S.2d 394, 450 N.E.2d 200; People v. Servidio, 54 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 445 N.Y.S.2d 143, 429 N.E.2d 821 [no reason to believe there was deli......
-
People v. Bertolo
...all his civil rights and had free access to his father and mother at home and to his father at the squad (cf. People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 463 N.Y.S.2d 394, 450 N.E.2d 200; People v. Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508, 410 N.Y.S.2d 549, 382 N.E.2d 1326). His confession was voluntary and complet......
-
People v. Morris
...in summation be deemed an indication of incompetence (People v. Fuschino, 87 A.D.2d 716, 717, 448 N.Y.S.2d 904, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 91, 463 N.Y.S.2d 394, 450 N.E.2d 200). In fact, any objection would probably have been futile as the comments were fair responses to the use of similar phrases by ......