People v. Stoesser
| Decision Date | 26 March 1981 |
| Citation | 438 N.Y.S.2d 990,421 N.E.2d 110,53 N.Y.2d 648 |
| Parties | , 421 N.E.2d 110 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Carl STOESSER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division 67 A.D.2d 837, 412 N.Y.S.2d 532 should be reversed, and the case remitted for a new trial.
The record at the suppression hearing is meagre at the critical point. It appears that in the evening of July 19, 1977 defendant voluntarily went to the police station in the Village of Walton at the request of the police. On being given his constitutional preinterrogation warning, defendant and his uncle (who had accompanied him) requested an attorney. None was furnished but defendant was allowed to make a telephone call in an effort to contact an attorney. Defendant and his uncle were then transported 27 miles to the New York police substation in Deposit, New York, where they arrived about 11:00 P.M., at which time the uncle again demanded that defendant be given an attorney and was assured that one would be provided. Defendant was separated from his uncle and taken to the personal office of Inspector Carmody where he remained until 5 or 6 o'clock the following morning. Carmody advised defendant of his preinterrogation rights again and informed him that he was under arrest. Defendant stated that he did not want to talk without talking to an attorney. He was told that he would be given an attorney on his arraignment.
The transcript then becomes very sparse. Carmody testified in conclusory fashion that he did not question defendant who volunteered the oral statements sought to be suppressed. Defendant did not testify at the suppression hearing but submitted his affidavit in which he similarly conclusorily averred that his statement was given in response to questioning by Carmody who ignored his request for counsel. Neither provided any details as to what actually occurred.
The suppression court found that defendant's statements were "voluntary and not in response to questions put to him by the investigators", and this finding was affirmed at the Appellate Division.
Because defendant's statements should have been suppressed his conviction must be reversed. Defendant was in police custody for an extended prior of time, and he had several times requested an attorney....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...in custody and without the benefit of Miranda warnings, they were spontaneous and, therefore, admissible (see, People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 650, 438 N.Y.S.2d 990 [ (1981) ]; People v. Suarez, 140 A.D.2d 558, 528 N.Y.S.2d 424 [ (1988) ] ). The challenged statements were preceded only b......
-
People v. Kern
...of an interrogation environment or the result of express questioning or its functional equivalent (see, People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 650, 438 N.Y.S.2d 990, 421 N.E.2d 110), for the police are not obligated to "take affirmative steps, by gag or otherwise, to prevent a talkative person ......
-
People v. Smith
...46 N.Y.2d 289, 302, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245]. The burden of proof as to this is on the People [People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 438 N.Y.S.2d 990, 421 N.E.2d 110] and they have not carried The next event of importance occurred at 12:45 p.m. on May 22, 1981, when Anthony Adang, a ......
-
People v. Tavares–nunez
...was in custody and unwarned ( People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d at 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862, quoting People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 650, 438 N.Y.S.2d 990, 421 N.E.2d 110; see People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 302–303, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245; People v. Dunn, 195 A.D.2d......