People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203 (1980)
When a suspect, even if not in custody, informs the police that they have retained an attorney and wish to have the attorney present during questioning, the right to counsel attaches, and any statements made in the absence of counsel are inadmissible.
Summary
Cunningham, a suspect in a homicide investigation, informed the police that he had retained an attorney and would report for questioning with his attorney. Upon arriving at the precinct without his attorney, he reiterated his desire to have his attorney present. The police, after informing him of his Miranda rights, proceeded to question him, eliciting inculpatory statements. The New York Court of Appeals held that Cunningham’s statements should have been suppressed because his right to counsel had attached when he informed the police he had retained an attorney and wished the attorney to be present, and this right could not be waived outside the presence of his counsel.
Facts
Police were investigating a homicide. Cunningham, a suspect, contacted the local precinct and said he would report for questioning accompanied by his attorney. Upon arrival, Cunningham inquired about his attorney’s presence and was informed the attorney had not yet arrived. Cunningham met with the officer in charge, informing him he was awaiting his attorney and providing the attorney’s business card. Despite this, the officer advised Cunningham of his Miranda rights and proceeded to question him, resulting in inculpatory statements.
Procedural History
Cunningham was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. Before trial, Cunningham moved to suppress the statements he made at the precinct. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Cunningham appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s statements to police should have been suppressed because his right to counsel had attached when he informed the police he had retained an attorney and wished the attorney to be present during questioning, even though he was not in custody?
Holding
Yes, because the defendant adequately informed the police he had retained an attorney regarding the matter under investigation and wanted the attorney present during questioning; therefore, his right to counsel had attached and could not be waived in the absence of counsel.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Cunningham’s actions clearly indicated that he had retained an attorney and wished the attorney to be present during questioning. This affirmative act to interpose an attorney between himself and the police triggered his right to counsel. The Court relied on its prior decision in People v. Skinner, 52 N.Y.2d 24, which established that once the right to counsel attaches, it cannot be waived in the absence of counsel. The Court found it immaterial that Cunningham’s attorney had not explicitly directed the police to cease interrogation, distinguishing it from the precise facts of Skinner. The crucial point was that Cunningham had clearly indicated he had an attorney and wanted that attorney present. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting a defendant’s right to counsel once it has been invoked, even outside the context of custodial interrogation. The Court stated, “Defendant’s acts adequately apprised the police that he had retained an attorney with respect to the matter under investigation and that he wished his attorney to be present during questioning… Inasmuch as defendant’s right to counsel had attached, and the right could not be waived in the absence of counsel, defendant’s statements made in response to the police interrogation were improperly obtained and should have been suppressed.” Although Skinner was decided after the trial court’s ruling, the Court applied it retroactively per People v. Pepper, 53 N.Y.2d 213. The Court did, however, uphold the admissibility of a spontaneous statement Cunningham made later while in a holding pen, finding no basis to disturb the lower courts’ finding that it was truly spontaneous.