People v. Powell
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 22 |
| Citation | 37 N.Y.3d 476,182 N.E.3d 1028,162 N.Y.S.3d 235 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Howard POWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Paul Skip Laisure, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Christopher Blira-Koessler, Danielle M. O'Boyle and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York City (James L. Brochin, Jason E. Meade, Julie Amadeo and Daniel W. Podair of counsel), and Innocence Project, Inc., New York City (Lauren Gottesman of counsel), for Innocence Project, Inc., amicus curiae.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Matthew Bova of counsel), Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City, and Leanne G. Lapp, Chief Defenders Association of New York, Canandaigua, for Center for Appellate Litigation and others, amici curiae.
False confessions elicited during custodial interrogations do exist. In People v. Bedessie, 19 N.Y.3d 147, 161, 947 N.Y.S.2d 357, 970 N.E.2d 380 (2012), we recognized that the phenomenon of false confessions during custodial interrogation is common knowledge, and we opined that expert psychological testimony relevant to the defendant and the custodial interrogation at issue could be admissible "to educate a jury about those factors of personality and situation that the relevant scientific community considers to be associated with false confessions." The admissibility and limits of the expert's testimony lie primarily in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the expert may not render an opinion as to the truthfulness or falsity of the confession. The primary issue presented in this case is whether the trial court, in denying defendant's Bedessie application, erred in precluding the testimony of defendant's proffered expert witness on false confessions after holding Frye and Huntley hearings. On this record, the trial court's determination was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Defendant was charged with having committed two elevator robberies over the course of three days. During the first incident on February 23, 2010, HT was robbed at knifepoint in an elevator of a building in the Queensbridge Housing Complex. Two days later, a second individual, EY, was robbed by a man displaying what appeared to be a box cutter, in an elevator of the same housing complex. EY first encountered the robber, whom she described as a six-foot-tall, light-skinned black male in his 30s, carrying an umbrella, when he asked her to light his cigarette as she exited a local grocery store at about 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of February 25. As EY walked back to her nearby apartment, the same man followed her into her building.
The two entered the elevator and, when the doors closed, the man physically attacked the victim. The robbery, including a face-to-face struggle between the victim and her assailant that lasted more than two minutes, was captured on the building's video surveillance system. Although the perpetrator's face is not clearly visible to the viewer of the video, the film depicts a tall man wearing a hooded, dark-colored coat and hat, carrying a large black umbrella with a curved handle.
EY's assailant fled with her electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card. Surveillance footage from a nearby deli, recorded at approximately 4:00 p.m., depicts a tall man similar in build and appearance to the man who committed the robbery—wearing the same type of clothing and carrying a large umbrella—attempt to use the stolen EBT card a short time after the robbery. The card was declined and the man then attempted to use it in the ATM. The surveillance footage from the well-lit store shows portions of the man's face from multiple angles. By interviewing witnesses and matching photographs with the surveillance footage, the police identified defendant as a suspect.
On March 1, 2010, defendant was arrested on the fifth floor of a building in the Queensbridge Housing Complex for possession of crack cocaine and was transported to the local precinct. There, he was interviewed about the robberies that took place on February 23 and 25. The following day, defendant made the two statements that are in issue here. The first statement, elicited during the morning hours, was handwritten by defendant. Without providing any detail, defendant admitted to having committed robberies, claimed to have been under the influence of drugs and indicated he wanted to help the police.1 The second statement was elicited in the afternoon, after defendant had been identified in lineups by both victims. The statement prepared and typewritten by the detective assigned to the case summarized defendant's detailed oral statement, in which he admitted following the victim (EY), who was carrying groceries, and robbing her of her EBT card after a struggle in the elevator. Defendant again claimed to have been "messed up on drugs" and that he wanted to help the police.2 He signed the statement on the second page, which contained no factual allegations.
Defendant was indicted for two counts of robbery in the first degree.3 Prior to trial, defendant served a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to introduce psychiatric evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that he was suffering from psychiatric conditions that "adversely affected the voluntariness and reliability of the interrogations conducted." In support of his position, defendant submitted medical records of his history of a seizure disorder, depression, and schizophrenia , as well as a forensic psychological report prepared by Sanford L. Drob, Ph.D., who conducted a clinical evaluation of defendant. Dr. Drob characterized defendant's intellectual function to be within the "borderline range," with an IQ of 78. He concluded that defendant had several mental health issues, including possible paranoid ideation
and substance abuse issues. Dr. Drob opined that the combination of attendant factors, including defendant's mental illness and cognitive deficits, "could make him vulnerable to suggestion in a custodial setting."
Defendant moved to suppress the two noticed statements. At the Huntley hearing, Detective Grinder and defendant testified to contradictory narratives of the circumstances surrounding the custodial interrogation.4 Each version is summarized here, as is necessary to evaluate the trial court's Bedessie determination.
Detective Grinder testified that defendant was arrested at about 2:20 p.m. on March 1. While defendant was held in the precinct's interrogation room, one of his hands was handcuffed to the wall. Grinder, who arrived at the precinct about two hours after the arrest, advised defendant of his Miranda rights later that same evening at about 6:30 p.m. Defendant signed and initialed the Miranda card, waiving his rights, but did not make any admissions on March 1. When told his arrest was made in connection with robberies committed in the Queensbridge Housing Complex, defendant became visibly agitated and denied any involvement. The detective, who intended to conduct lineups the next day, ended the interview. Upon defendant's request, Detective Grinder traveled to defendant's friend's home, where he retrieved four bottles of medication prescribed to defendant. The detective returned to the precinct and vouchered the medications. He could not recall whether defendant took the medication. Shortly thereafter, at about 11:50 p.m., defendant was transported to central booking for lodging that night.
On the morning of March 2, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Detective Grinder and another detective transported defendant from central booking back to the precinct. Defendant was given breakfast—coffee and a bagel. Defendant's demeanor was now calm, and he agreed to speak with detectives. Miranda warnings were not reissued, nor was the interview recorded. At about 10:00 a.m., the detectives began discussing the charges and informed defendant that he would be required to participate in lineup identification procedures. Detective Grinder supplied defendant with pen and paper and left him alone in the room where he handwrote the first statement.
Two lineups, each with six participants, were conducted on March 2 at 12:30 p.m. and both victims identified defendant. Shortly after the lineups were conducted, and while in the interrogation room with the two detectives at about 1:00 p.m., defendant asked the detectives if he had been identified by the victims. The detectives informed him that he had been identified by both victims and asked if he wanted to make any further statements. Defendant then admitted that he had committed four robberies, including the two charged here.5 He asked Grinder to write out the confessions for him, as he was not a good writer, and proceeded to give the second statement orally. Grinder, who did not take any notes, later typed up the confession, which defendant signed on the blank, second page. Detective Grinder testified that he spoke with defendant on-and-off "the whole day" on March 2 and that he provided defendant a meal from Burger King. He further testified that defendant did not request any medical assistance and did not appear to be experiencing any type of drug withdrawal. At about 8:30 p.m. that night, defendant was returned to central booking.
Testifying on his own behalf, defendant gave a very different version of the interrogation events. As to his background, he testified that he had low intelligence, suffered from seizures, and had a history of schizophrenia
, depression and substance abuse. He had been prescribed various medications for those conditions but the last time he took his medications was at about 8:00 p.m. the night before his arrest (February 28). On the morning of March 1, defendant ingested heroin and crack cocaine. After his arrest that afternoon, he was feeling...
To continue reading
Request your trial