People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331 (1990)
A suspect who has counsel assigned in a prior, unrelated case can waive the right to counsel in the absence of counsel during a subsequent interrogation regarding a new, unrelated charge.
Summary
Bing addresses the scope of a defendant’s right to counsel in New York, particularly when the defendant has prior representation in an unrelated case. The Court of Appeals held that the derivative right to counsel established in People v. Bartolomeo was no longer good law. Thus, a defendant can waive their right to counsel, even without counsel present, when being questioned on a new charge that is unrelated to a previous case where they were assigned counsel. This decision overruled the broader protections previously afforded to defendants under Bartolomeo, emphasizing the need for a clearer, more practical standard.
Facts
The defendant was arrested for criminal possession of a controlled substance and resisting arrest. While in custody, he volunteered information about an unrelated homicide. He was assigned counsel for the misdemeanor charges under an alias. Later, police learned his true identity and arrested him for a parole violation. After receiving Miranda warnings, the defendant waived his right to counsel and discussed the homicide again, making inculpatory statements. He was then charged with murder.
Procedural History
The Onondaga County Court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, finding a violation of his right to counsel. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed, denying suppression. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether inculpatory statements made by a defendant, after waiving the right to counsel in the absence of counsel, should be suppressed when the defendant had previously been assigned counsel in a pending, unrelated misdemeanor case.
Holding
No, because the derivative right to counsel established in People v. Bartolomeo does not extend to subsequent interrogations on unrelated charges after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals addressed the interplay between People v. Rogers and People v. Bartolomeo, and ultimately overruled Bartolomeo to limit the scope of derivative right to counsel. The Court explained that the Bartolomeo rule, which imputed a duty to inquire about prior representation, lacked a “principled basis which justifies its social cost.” The Court emphasized that “there is little to be said for a [derivative] rule which is not firmly grounded on prior case law, cannot be applied uniformly, favors recidivists over first-time arrestees, and exacts such a heavy cost from the public.”
The Court clarified that Rogers still stands for the principle that once a defendant in custody requests or is represented by counsel, interrogation must cease on any subject. However, Bing makes it clear that this protection does not extend to subsequent interrogations on unrelated charges when the defendant validly waives their Miranda rights. The Court distinguished Bing from Rogers noting, “In People v. Bartolomeo (supra), however, defendant was taken into custody for questioning on a new, unrelated charge. He was not represented on that charge and freely waived his right to counsel”.
Thus, the Court held that a suspect is competent to waive the right to counsel in the absence of counsel regarding matters unrelated to a charge where counsel was previously assigned. This decision aimed to strike a balance between protecting defendants’ rights and ensuring effective law enforcement.