15 N.Y.2d 30 (1964)
r
r
A defendant’s indictment on one charge does not preclude law enforcement from questioning him, without counsel, about a separate and distinct crime for which he has not been indicted or arraigned, and a confession obtained during such questioning is admissible, provided the initial indictment was not a pretext.
r
r
Summary
r
Stanley was convicted of grand larceny. Prior to this, he was indicted on federal charges for inducing someone to transport money across state lines to defraud him. After being released on bail on the federal charges, he was taken into custody by New York City police officers and questioned about the larceny charge without counsel. The statements he made were admitted at trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that being indicted on one charge does not prevent police from questioning a defendant about a separate crime for which they haven’t been indicted or arraigned, absent evidence the first indictment was a pretext.
r
r
Facts
r
r
Stanley was charged with stealing money from Haag and Schermond.r
Prior to the New York indictment, Stanley was arraigned before a U.S. Commissioner and indicted by a Federal Grand Jury under a federal statute for inducing Schermond to transport money across state lines to defraud him.r
Stanley pleaded not guilty to the federal indictment and was released on bail.r
Upon release, New York City police officers immediately took Stanley into custody and questioned him about the larceny charge without providing him with counsel.r
Statements made by Stanley during this interrogation were admitted as evidence at his grand larceny trial.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Stanley was convicted of grand larceny in the first degree in New York County.r
He appealed, contending that the statements he made to the police after his federal indictment, without counsel, were inadmissible based on prior New York Court of Appeals decisions.r
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether an indictment on one charge prevents law enforcement officials from questioning a defendant, in the absence of counsel, about a separate and distinct crime for which the defendant has not been arraigned or indicted, rendering any resulting confession inadmissible.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the indictment on one charge does not constitute the formal commencement of a criminal action regarding the second, separate crime, and questioning on the second crime does not impinge on the defendant’s rights to counsel or freedom from testimonial compulsion, provided the initial indictment was not a pretext for the interrogation.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals acknowledged its prior rulings that post-arraignment or post-indictment statements made without counsel are inadmissible because an arraignment or indictment