People v. Harris

Decision Date10 January 2012
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James A. HARRIS, Jr., appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00225
93 A.D.3d 58
936 N.Y.S.2d 233

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
James A. HARRIS, Jr., appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 10, 2012.


[936 N.Y.S.2d 235]

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

CHAMBERS, J.

APPEAL by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court (Robert Freehill, J.), rendered November 19, 2007, and entered in Orange County, convicting him of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

[93 A.D.3d 60] This appeal raises two principal questions: whether the defendant's statement, during a custodial interrogation, “I think I want to talk to a lawyer,” unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, and, if so, whether the statements subsequently given by the defendant in the absence of counsel must be suppressed. We answer both questions in the affirmative, and conclude that the hearing court's error in

[936 N.Y.S.2d 236]

failing to suppress these statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Factual Background

On September 17, 2006, a group of children alerted patrol officers from the City of Newburgh Police Department that they detected a foul odor and fluid emanating from a red sedan. Police officers opened the trunk, and discovered the decomposing body of Franklin Fitts, who had been bound and gagged. An autopsy revealed that Fitts had been dead for two or three days before his body was found, and the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and asphyxia. From the beginning of the criminal investigation into the death of Fitts, the New York State Police focused its attention on the residence of the codefendant, James Blagmon, because it received information that Fitts had ties to that residence, and that Blagmon was under investigation for selling and distributing drugs there. On September 18, 2006, while the residence was under police surveillance, the defendant was observed driving a Mazda in the vicinity. By radio transmission, Investigator Paul DeQuarto, who was following the Mazda in an unmarked car, directed a patrol officer to stop the vehicle. When the Mazda pulled into a nearby gas station, the officer activated the lights on a squad car and pulled behind the Mazda. Since the defendant had reached toward the glove compartment, the officer handcuffed [93 A.D.3d 61] the defendant and detained him until Investigator DeQuarto arrived. While the defendant was still in handcuffs, Investigator DeQuarto asked the defendant if he would go to the nearby State Police Troop headquarters for an interview. The defendant inquired as to the subject matter, and Investigator DeQuarto said he would tell him when they reached headquarters. The defendant, who was not told he was free to leave, agreed. The defendant rode with a state trooper to the State Police Troop headquarters in a police car.

After he arrived at the headquarters, the defendant was placed in an interview room measuring 8 feet by 10 feet, at which time his handcuffs were removed. Approximately 1 1/2 hours later, Investigator DeQuarto and Detective Rolando Zapata began questioning the defendant. At 9:58 P.M. on September 18, 2006, after his pedigree information was obtained, the defendant was given Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), and he agreed to speak with the investigator and the detective.

The defendant was questioned about his whereabouts on September 14, 2006, and he first claimed that he never left his home after 9:00 P.M. on that night, but subsequently admitted that he met Blagmon for drinks at a bar late that evening. Approximately one hour into the interview, and after the defendant was moved to a classroom so that he could smoke a cigarette, Investigator DeQuarto told him that the State Police were conducting an investigation into the homicide of Fitts, and indicated to him that he was considered a suspect. Investigator DeQuarto asked the defendant to provide a DNA sample and, after initially refusing, the defendant agreed. The defendant repeatedly denied any involvement in the death of Fitts, prompting the police to request, at least eight times, that he take a polygraph examination. Each time, the defendant refused. When shown, for the second time, a photograph of Fitts bound and gagged in the trunk of Fitts's own car, the defendant again disavowed any involvement in his death and, said, crucially, “I think I want to talk to a lawyer and I want to go.” At 1:05 A.M. on September 19, 2006, the investigator

[936 N.Y.S.2d 237]

and the detective ended the questioning, and the defendant was escorted to the lobby and permitted to leave.

On September 22, 2006, the defendant returned to the State Police Troop headquarters to retrieve the Mazda in which he had been stopped and apprehended. By then, Blagmon's girlfriend, Shanicqua Mitchell, had implicated Blagmon and the [93 A.D.3d 62] defendant in the murder. Investigator DeQuarto, having learned that the defendant was at the State Police Troop headquarters, told him that he wanted to ask him additional questions. After the defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights, he was questioned, and he admitted that on the night of September 14, 2006, shortly before the murder, he went to Blagmon's home before heading to a bar with him at around midnight on September 15, 2006. The defendant initially stated that he remained at the bar until 4:00 A.M., when a friend of his drove him home. The defendant stated that he went to bed with his girlfriend and did not awake until 10:00 or 11:00 A.M. on September 15, 2006. However, when the police showed the defendant phone records indicating that he had called his girlfriend at 6:00 A.M. on September 15, 2006, the defendant then admitted that he had not been home that morning.

According to the defendant's statement, after he went home, he spoke with Blagmon, who asked for the defendant's help and wanted him to come over to his home. The defendant explained that, at approximately 5:00 A.M. on September 15, 2006, he went to Blagmon's home, but claimed that he did not go inside. The defendant admitted that Blagmon had said that he needed to get “this” out of here, but he denied knowing what Blagmon meant by “this,” and he explained that he only knew that Blagmon was going to drive Fitts's car, while he followed behind in Blagmon's car. According to the defendant, he and Blagmon drove from Middletown, New York, to Newburgh, where they left Fitts's car. Afterwards, the defendant and Blagmon returned to Middletown. The defendant stated that he did not know that Fitts's body was in the trunk of Fitts's car.

At 2:50 A.M. on September 23, 2006, the police ended the interview of the defendant, the defendant was placed under arrest, and he was handed over to uniformed state troopers for arrest processing. However, during the processing, and while waiting for arraignment, the defendant repeatedly requested to speak with Investigator DeQuarto, announcing that he had more details about the crime and Blagmon's involvement in it. Ultimately, the defendant was re-interviewed, and he confessed that, when he went to Blagmon's home, he saw Fitts bloodied and bound, but alive. The defendant said that Blagmon struck Fitts twice in the head with a piece of wood, and that the defendant then helped Blagmon carry Fitts outside and placed him in the trunk of Fitts's car. As recounted by the defendant, before he and Blagmon left the Blagmon residence, Blagmon [93 A.D.3d 63] called Mitchell to come downstairs, and he told her to clean up. The defendant stated that Blagmon drove Fitts's car to Newburgh, while he followed behind in Blagmon's car. The defendant explained that Fitts's car was left in Newburgh, and that the defendant and Blagmon then drove back to Middletown in Blagmon's car. Investigator DeQuarto transcribed the interrogation into a 10–page report, and the defendant signed it.

Following a hearing, the County Court determined that when the police first questioned the defendant about the murder on September 18, 2006, a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that it was permissible to leave and, thus, the defendant was in police custody.

[936 N.Y.S.2d 238]

Since the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, the County Court suppressed the statements the defendant made on September 18, 2006, from use in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The County Court ultimately denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the statements he made to the police when he was subsequently interviewed on September 22, 2006, and into September 23, 2006, finding that the statements had been voluntarily made after the defendant had been advised of and waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), and that those statements were sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful police conduct on September 18, 2006. In ruling that those statements were admissible, the County Court concluded that, on September 18, 2006, the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel when he told police, “I think I want to talk to a lawyer and I want to go.” 1

The matter proceeded to trial, where the statements the defendant made on September 22, 2006, and September 23, 2006, were used against him. In addition to these statements, the prosecution presented evidence circumstantially connecting the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • People v. Dunbar
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 30, 2013
    ...230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Schaeffer, 56 N.Y.2d 448, 454, 452 N.Y.S.2d 561, 438 N.E.2d 94; People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 58, 71, 936 N.Y.S.2d 233, affd. 20 N.Y.3d 912, 956 N.Y.S.2d 478, 980 N.E.2d 527). As the Court of Appeals has recognized, this is "perhaps the mo......
  • People v. James
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 2015
    ...104 A.D.3d at 214–215, 958 N.Y.S.2d 764 ; see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d at 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 58, 71, 936 N.Y.S.2d 233, affd. 20 N.Y.3d 912, 956 N.Y.S.2d 478, 980 N.E.2d 527 ). Without the showup identification testimony, we cannot say th......
  • People v. Washington
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2013
    ...the lack of a formal retainer agreement]; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 231–232, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N.E.2d 852;People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 58, 66, 936 N.Y.S.2d 233). For example, in People v. Garofolo, 46 N.Y.2d 592, 415 N.Y.S.2d 810, 389 N.E.2d 123, the defendant, a suspect in a homi......
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 21, 2013
    ...U.S. 18, 21–24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705;People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 58, 71, 936 N.Y.S.2d 233,affd.20 N.Y.3d 912, 956 N.Y.S.2d 478, 980 N.E.2d 527). It has been recognized that this “rigorous” standard ( People v. ......
  • 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