People v. Hobson

Decision Date04 May 1976
Citation39 N.Y.2d 479,384 N.Y.S.2d 419,348 N.E.2d 894
Parties, 348 N.E.2d 894 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry Cornelius HOBSON, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Gerald J. Callahan, Commack, John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Riverhead, and Leon J. Kesner, Bay Shore, for appellant.

Henry F. O'Brien, Dist. Atty. (Charles M. Newell, Riverhead, of counsel), for respondent.

BREITEL, Chief Judge.

Defendant, following denial of a motion to suppress his incriminating statements, was convicted, after a guilty plea, of third degree robbery (Penal Law § 160.05).He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.His conviction was affirmed, and he appeals.

The issue is whether a defendant in custody, represented by a lawyer in connection with criminal charges under investigation, may validly, in the absence of the lawyer, waive his right to counsel.

There should be a reversal.Once a lawyer has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer (People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 329, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 666, 239 N.E.2d 537, 539).Any statements elicited by an agent of the State, however subtly, after a purported 'waiver' obtained without the presence or assistance of counsel, are inadmissible.Since the purported 'waiver' of defendant's right to counsel was obtained in the absence of his lawyer, who had represented him at a just-completed lineup in connection with the criminal charges, his statements were inadmissible and should have been suppressed.

The facts are undisputed.On February 7, 1973, at approximately 8:30 p.m., defendant entered a delicatessen in Central Islip in Suffolk County.After asking for directions from the owner, George Gundlach, defendant drew a gun and demanded all the cash in the register.After he had received the cash and a number of packages of cigarettes, defendant left.

When the police arrived shortly thereafter, Mr. Gundlach described the robber to Suffolk County Detective Dolan.He then accompanied the detective to the police station, where he eventually identified photographs of defendant as those of the culprit.Mr. Gundlach did state, however, that to be positive he would have to see defendant in person.

Nine months later, on September 26, 1973, defendant was being held in the Suffolk County Jail on charges unrelated to the delicatessen robbery.He was not under arrest for the robbery at that time, although he was a photograph-identified suspect.Defendant was placed in a five-man lineup.Because defendant had requested counsel, Samuel McElroy, a Legal Aid lawyer, was assigned and present to represent him.Mr. Gundlach identified defendant as the robber.Mr. McElroy then left.

After Mr. McElroy left, a Sheriff's deputy asked Detective Dolan if he desired to speak to defendant.Despite his admitted knowledge that defendant was now represented by counsel on the robbery charge, Dolan replied that he would.The detective had not told Mr. McElroy that he was going to speak to defendant, nor did he make any effort to reach counsel before seeing defendant.At the deputy's request, defendant signed an undescribed form of 'waiver'(which Dolan testified he had never seen) and agreed to speak to Dolan.Defendant was then brought to an 'interview' room in the jailhouse.

Detective Dolan read to defendant the standard preinterrogation warnings and asked him if he understood.Defendant said that he did.The detective then asked defendant'Do you wish to contact a lawyer?'Defendant shook his head, indicating 'No'.The detective then asked 'Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me now without a lawyer?'Defendant replied 'Yes'.

Defendant then inquired of Dolan whether he had been identified by Mr. Gundlach, and the detective told him that he had.Expressing a desire to 'clear up everything', defendant in effect confessed to the robbery.

In People v. Arthur(22 N.Y.2d 325, 329, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 666, 239 N.E.2d 537, 539, Supra), the court held: 'Once an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel(People v. Vella, 21 N.Y.2d 249, 287 N.Y.S.2d 369, 234 N.E.2d 422).There is no requirement that the attorney or the defendant request the police to respect this right of the defendant.'The rule of the Arthur case has been restated many times (seePeople v. Hetherington, 27 N.Y.2d 242, 244--245, 317 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2--3, 265 N.E.2d 530, 531;People v. Paulin, 25 N.Y.2d 445, 450, 306 N.Y.S.2d 929, 933, 255 N.E.2d 164, 166;People v. McKie, 25 N.Y.2d 19, 26, 302 N.Y.S.2d 534, 538, 250 N.E.2d 36, 39;People v. Miles, 23 N.Y.2d 527, 542, 297 N.Y.S.2d 913, 924, 245 N.E.2d 688, 695, cert. den.395 U.S. 948, 89 S.Ct. 2028, 23 L.Ed.2d 467;cf.People v. Stephen J.B., 23 N.Y.2d 611, 616, 298 N.Y.S.2d 489, 494, 246 N.E.2d 344, 348).

This unequivocal and reiterated statement of the law in this State is no mere 'dogmatic claim' or 'theoretical statement of the rule'(see, contra, People v. Robles, 27 N.Y.2d 155, 158, 314 N.Y.S.2d 793, 794, 263 N.E.2d 304, 305, cert. den.401 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 959, 28 L.Ed.2d 227, thus characterizing the rule).It is, instead, a rule grounded in this State's constitutional and statutory guarantees of the privilege against self incrimination, the right to the assistance of counsel, and due process of law (seePeople v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 328, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 665, 239 N.E.2d 537, 538, Supra;People v. Failla, 14 N.Y.2d 178, 180, 250 N.Y.S.2d 267, 268, 199 N.E.2d 366, 367;People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 151, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 842, 193 N.E.2d 628, 629;Richardson, Evidence(10th ed.), § 545, at p. 546).Indeed, the rule resisted narrow classification of defendants entitled to its protection; it is applicable to a defendant when taken into custody, whetehr as an 'accused', a 'suspect', or a 'witness'(cf.People v. Sanchez, 15 N.Y.2d 387, 389, 259 N.Y.S.2d 409, 410, 207 N.E.2d 356).

Of course, as with all verbalizations of constitutional principles, the rule of the Arthurcase (supra) is not an absolute.Thus, the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to invoke the rule (seePeople v. Hetherington, 27 N.Y.2d 242, 245, 317 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2, 265 N.E.2d 530, 531, Supra;People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 331--332, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4--5, 266 N.E.2d 630, 632--633).The rule applies only to a defendant who is in custody; it does not apply to noncustodial interrogation (People v. McKie, 25 N.Y.2d 19, 28, 302 N.Y.S.2d 534, 540, 250 N.E.2d 36, 40, Supra).Moreover, the rule of the Arthurcase (supra) does not render inadmissible a defendant's spontaneously volunteered statement (People v. Kaye, 25 N.Y.2d 139, 144, 303 N.Y.S.2d 41, 45, 250 N.E.2d 329, 331;cf.People v. Robles, 27 N.Y.2d 155, 159, 314 N.Y.S.2d 793, 795, 263 N.E.2d 304, 305, cert. den.401 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 959, 28 L.Ed.2d 227, Supra).

The Donovan and Arthur cases(supra) extended constitutional protections of a defendant under the State Constitution beyond those afforded by the Federal Constitution(comparePeople v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 329, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 666, 239 N.E.2d 537, 539, Supra;andPeople v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 151, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841, 842, 193 N.E.2d 628, 629, Supra;withMiran v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694;andEscobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 486--487, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977;seeRichardson, Evidence (10th ed.), Op. cit., at pp. 548--549;but cf., e.g., Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 205--206, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246;United States v. Thomas, 10 Cir., 474 F.2d 110, 112, cert. den.412 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 2758, 37 L.Ed.2d 160;United States ex rel. Lopez v. Zelker, D.C., 344 F.Supp. 1050, 1054, affd.2 Cir., 465 F.2d 1405, cert. den.409 U.S. 1049, 93 S.Ct. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 501, dealing with the right to counsel after the commencement of adversary judicial proceedings).

Notwithstanding that warnings alone might suffice to protect the privilege against self incrimination, the presence of counsel is a more effective safeguard against an involuntary waiver of counsel than a mere written or oral warning in the absence of counsel(seeUnited States v. Massimo, 2 Cir., 432 F.2d 324, 327(Friendly, J., dissenting), cert. den.400 U.S. 1022, 91 S.Ct. 586, 27 L.Ed.2d 633;compareALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure(Tent.Draft No. 6, 1974), § 140.8, subd. (2);Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, Supra).The rule that once a lawyer has entered the proceedings in connection with the charges under investigation, a person in custody may validly waive the assistance of counsel only in the presence of lawyer breathes life into the requirment that a waiver of a constitutional right must be competent, intelligent and voluntary (seePeople v. Witenski, 15 N.Y.2d 392, 395, 259 N.Y.S.2d 413, 414, 207 N.E.2d 358, 360;Matter of Bojinoff v. People, 299 N.Y. 145, 151--152, 85 N.E.2d 909, 911--912;Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461).Indeed, it may be said that a right too easily waived is no right at all.

Moreover, an attempt to secure a waiver of the right of counsel in a criminal proceeding in the absence of a lawyer, already retained or assigned, would constitute a breach of professional ethics, as it would be in the least-consequential civil matter (seeABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR7--104, subd. (A), par.(1);People v. Robles, 27 N.Y.2d 155, 162, 314 N.Y.S.2d 793, 798, 263 N.E.2d 304, 307(Fuld, Ch. J., dissenting), cert. den.401 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 959, 28 L.Ed.2d 227, Supra;United States v. Thomas, 474 F.2d 110, 111--112, cert. den.412 U.S....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
423 cases
  • People v. Houston
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 2 Octubre 1986
    ...enters the proceeding," the suspect is permitted to reconsider his waiver in counsel's presence. (People v. Hobson (1976) 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 421, 348 N.E.2d 894, 897; People v. Arthur (1968) 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 665, 239 N.E.2d 537, Other courts have not adopted Ne......
  • Commonwealth v. Sparrow
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1977
    ...Commonwealth v. Hilliard, --- Pa. ---, 370 A.2d 322 (1977). (Opinion announcing the Judgment of the Court); People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894 (1976); see Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 448 Pa. 206, 220, 292 A.2d 302, 309 (1972) (Dissenting Opinion of Nix, J., joine......
  • Edwards v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2021
    ...the injustice that arose from the error with the potential injury that will result from the correction. People v. Hobson , 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 488, 348 N.E.2d 894 (1976). Upon the scales of justice must lie the recognition that consistent development of legal principles fosters......
  • United States v. Gazzara
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 Mayo 1984
    ...denied, 412 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 2758, 37 L.Ed.2d 160 (1973) (per se rule excluding waiver outside counsel's presence); People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 484-85, 384 N.Y. S.2d 419, 422-23, 348 N.E.2d 894 (1976) (New York rule prohibiting uncounseled waiver). The Fifth Amendment prohibits inter......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Urging A Change In The Law: When To Set Aside Precedent?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 7 Mayo 2015
    ...Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940). 5 Ibid. 6 Buckley v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 300, 305 (1982). 7 People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 487 8 Ibid. 9 Woods v. Lancet, 303 N.Y. 349, 355 (1951). 10 The Nature of The Judicial Process, 152 (Yale Univ. Press 1921)(four lectures at Y......
10 books & journal articles
  • 20-b-2 What You Can Complain About in an Article 440 Motion
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (2020 Edition) Chapter 20 Using Article 440 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law to Attack Your Unfair Conviction or Illegal Sentence[*] (20 to 20 G) 20-b When to Use Article 440 (20-b-1 to 20-b-3)
    • Invalid date
    ...the time of its attachment and as to its waiver, is broader than the protection afforded under Federal law."). See also People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 483-84, 348 N.E.2d 894, 897, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 421-22 (1976) (detailing New York case law that extended protections for the defendant unde......
  • C. Pre-Arrest Silence
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Practical Skills: Criminal Law & Practice (NY) VII Motion To Suppress Statements
    • Invalid date
    ...v. White, 56 N.Y.2d 110, 451 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1982); People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874 (1978). [280] People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1976); People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1968); People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1963); se......
  • Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman: a new era.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 73 No. 3, March 2010
    • 22 Marzo 2010
    ...a right to determine what shall be done with his own body."). (5) 289 N.Y. 378, 46 N.E.2d 329 (1943). (6) 319 U.S. 105, 112 (1943). (7) 39 N.Y.2d 479, 348 N.E.2d 894, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419 (8) Id. at 483-84, 348 N.E.2d at 897, 384 N.Y.S.2d at 422. (9) See, e.g., Vincent Martin Bonventre, State C......
  • 8.5 - A. Scope Of The Suppression Hearing
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association NY Criminal Practice Chapter 8 Pretrial Hearings
    • Invalid date
    ...11 N.Y.2d 162, 227 N.Y.S.2d 427 (1962); see also People v. Lane, 64 N.Y.2d 1047, 489 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1985).[1455] . See People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1976); People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1968); People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1963)......
  • Get Started for Free

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