People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134 (1984)

r
r

A defendant’s prior voluntary statements, even if obtained in violation of the right to counsel, are admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility if the defendant testifies inconsistently at trial.

r
r

Summary

r

Maerling was convicted of felony murder and robbery. At trial, he claimed his written confession was coerced. The prosecution, in rebuttal, introduced evidence of later oral statements Maerling made that confirmed his involvement in the crime, even though those statements were obtained in violation of his right to counsel. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of the right to counsel can be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility, even if they are inadmissible as direct evidence. The court also held that an affidavit offered to impeach a witness was inadmissible because it did not concern a material issue in the case.

r
r

Facts

r

Jerry LoBasso was killed during a home invasion, and his wife was injured. Maerling and two codefendants were arrested. Maerling signed a confession admitting his involvement, but later claimed it was coerced through threats and beatings. He denied making later oral statements to officials admitting his participation.

r
r

Procedural History

r

Maerling was convicted at trial. The conviction was initially reversed by the New York Court of Appeals due to the improper admission of hearsay evidence and statements obtained in violation of his right to counsel. At the second trial, Maerling was again convicted. He appealed, arguing that the rebuttal evidence (the oral statements) was inadmissible and that the trial court erred in refusing to admit an affidavit to impeach a witness. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Maerling appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r
1. Whether statements obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to counsel are admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility at trial.

r

2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit an affidavit to impeach a witness.

r

r
r

Holding

r

r
1. Yes, because if the statement was voluntary, it may be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility even if it was obtained in violation of the right to counsel.

r

2. No, because the affidavit did not relate to a material issue in the case.

r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The Court of Appeals relied on Harris v. New York and Oregon v. Hass, which held that statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights, though inadmissible as direct evidence, may be used to impeach a defendant’s inconsistent testimony. New York extends this rule to statements obtained in violation of the state constitutional right to counsel, provided the statements are voluntary. The court stated, “admissibility rests not on whether a constitutional right is implicated but on a determination of voluntariness.” Because Maerling did not argue his later oral statements were involuntary, they were admissible for impeachment. Regarding the affidavit, the court noted CPL 60.35(1) allows impeachment of a party’s own witness with a prior inconsistent statement if the witness’s testimony