People v. Grimaldi

Decision Date05 May 1981
Citation439 N.Y.S.2d 833,422 N.E.2d 493,52 N.Y.2d 611
Parties, 422 N.E.2d 493 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dominick J. GRIMALDI, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Michael P. Joseph, New York City, for appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

At issue on this appeal is whether certain statements made by defendant during a telephone call with his father should be suppressed--because they were obtained by a police officer after defendant had been assigned counsel. In the circumstances of this case, it must be concluded that admission of the statements violated defendant's State constitutional rights.

Early on the morning of December 14, 1979, defendant was arrested and charged with second degree murder. He was arraigned and assigned counsel on the same day. Counsel from the public defender's office visited Grimaldi at 9:00 a. m. the next morning in the Greene County Jail.

A few hours later, Investigator Reidy of the State Police, accompanied by another officer, went to the Greene County Jail to interview defendant. Defendant was then brought to the jail library. Although Reidy himself testified that he knew defendant was represented by counsel, he nonetheless proceeded with the questioning. * Defendant refused to make any statements to the officers until he had an opportunity to talk with his father. Despite Reidy's exhortations to defendant to make a statement, defendant insisted upon speaking to his father. Finally, Reidy said to defendant "if you want to talk to your father and explain anything to him then you talk to him, and that I would get back and talk to you [defendant]."

Officer Reidy then arranged for defendant to be returned to his cell and for a phone to be provided. When the jail guard arrived with the phone, Reidy stood about 15 or 20 feet away from defendant's cell, outside defendant's view. The officer had not accompanied defendant back to his cell nor did he inform defendant that he would be within a short distance of the cell during the call. Thus, as far as defendant knew, no officer was present on the cell block during his phone conversation.

Officer Reidy overheard defendant make certain statements on the phone and recorded them in his notebook. Defendant's motion to suppress the statements was denied and they were admitted at trial. A jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of second degree murder.

Throughout the proceedings, defendant has maintained that the statements were obtained in violation of his State constitutional right to counsel. The Appellate Division, only briefly discussing the issue, concluded that because the police questioning had not directly elicited incriminating remarks, the statements were admissible. Reversal is mandated.

It is now firmly established by a long line of cases that a waiver of rights may be obtained from a criminal defendant who is actually and known to be represented by an attorney only in the presence of counsel (e. g., People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 162, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612; People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894; People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 329, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 239 N.E.2d 537; 51 St. John's L.Rev. 216). Any statement obtained in disregard of this rule violates the State Constitution and must be suppressed (e. g., People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d, at p. 162, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612, supra; People v. Hobson, supra). This "indelible" right to counsel also attaches upon defendant's request for an attorney, at arraignment or upon the filing of an accusatory instrument (People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421, 400 N.E.2d 360; People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 222-223, 424 N.Y.S.2d 892, 400 N.E.2d 1344; People v. Settles, supra, 46 N.Y.2d at pp. 165-166, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612). Underlying the rule is the concept that a criminal defendant confronted by the awesome prosecutorial machinery of the State is entitled, at a bare minimum, to the advice of counsel when he is considering surrender of his valuable legal rights (People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203, 207-208, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421, 400 N.E.2d 360, supra). Indeed, to deny a defendant the guidance of counsel at such a time could be tantamount to and sometimes even more harmful than denial of an attorney at the trial itself (see, e. g., People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 484-485, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894, supra; People v. Lopez, 28 N.Y.2d 23, 29, 319 N.Y.S.2d 826, 268 N.E.2d 628 overruled People v. Settles, supra).

In this case, defendant at the time of the questioning had been assigned counsel and had been arraigned. His indelible right to counsel had therefore undoubtedly attached and no waiver could be validly obtained. Aware of these facts, the officers nonetheless undertook to converse with defendant regarding the criminal charges in the absence of his attorney. Statements made by defendant in the course of the discussion would, of course, be inadmissible.

The People contend, however, that the statements here were volunteered by defendant at a time when no questioning was going on and were not a product of an interrogation. They conclude that the statements were thus spontaneous and admissible. This argument represents an inaccurate view of the spontaneity doctrine.

It is true that previous cases have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • February 3, 1983
    ...investigation might come of it, and was not a "blurt out" statement, but was an extension of police activity [People v. Grimaldi, 52 N.Y.2d 611, 439 N.Y.S.2d 833, 422 N.E.2d 493]. By concluding that the statements were improperly induced, within the meaning of Maerling, et al., the court do......
  • Brown v. Blumenfeld
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 19, 2012
    ...318, 320–321, 763 N.Y.S.2d 227, 794 N.E.2d 9;People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862;People v. Grimaldi, 52 N.Y.2d 611, 616, 439 N.Y.S.2d 833, 422 N.E.2d 493). Under the Program, arrestees are brought to an interview room where an ADA reads, or permits a detec......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1981
    ...the officer had inadvertently overheard. At the outset, we note that we find no police misconduct here. (Cf. People v. Grimaldi, 52 N.Y.2d 611, 439 N.Y.S.2d 833, 422 N.E.2d 493.) Mrs. Harris had been arrested for a felony. The bedroom in which she was speaking had two exits. In retreating t......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 10, 2012
    ...he could not deal with the police alone ( see People v. West, 81 N.Y.2d at 374, 599 N.Y.S.2d 484, 615 N.E.2d 968; People v. Grimaldi, 52 N.Y.2d 611, 616, 439 N.Y.S.2d 833, 422 N.E.2d 493; People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d at 209, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421, 400 N.E.2d 360). And crucially, Investigator ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT