People v. Post, 23 N.Y.2d 157 (1968)
A confession is admissible, despite the omission of an explicit warning about appointed counsel for indigent defendants, if there is no evidence the defendant was indigent at the time of interrogation.
Summary
Kenneth Post was convicted of manslaughter after confessing to hitting his six-week-old child. Prior to his confession, police advised Post of his Miranda rights but did not explicitly state that counsel would be appointed if he was indigent. At trial, Post testified to being employed and owning a car. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that the omission of the indigency warning was harmless error because Post presented no evidence of indigency at the time of the interrogation. The court reasoned that the Miranda warning regarding appointed counsel is only relevant when a defendant’s indigency is at issue.
Facts
Kenneth Post was asked to come to police headquarters to discuss the death of his six-week-old child. Before questioning, police informed Post of his right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, and that he had the right to an attorney. Post stated he didn’t want a lawyer and wanted to tell what happened. He made general remarks and confessed to hitting the baby. The police again warned him of his rights, placed him under arrest, and Post reiterated he didn’t want an attorney. He then gave a written confession. The police never explicitly told Post that if he was indigent, counsel would be appointed. At trial, Post testified he attended college, was employed, owned a car, and had debts of $800.
Procedural History
Post was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction without opinion. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a confession is inadmissible solely because the police failed to explicitly inform the defendant that counsel would be appointed if he was indigent, even when there is no evidence the defendant was, in fact, indigent at the time of the interrogation?
Holding
No, because where a defendant is not told that counsel will be furnished if he cannot afford one, his confession will not be excluded unless there is some evidence that the defendant was indigent at the time of the interrogation.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the Miranda warning regarding the right to appointed counsel is specifically aimed at protecting indigent defendants. The Court noted, “A suspect is not required to inform the police of his indigency in order to come within the purview of Miranda.” However, the Court continued that, “where a defendant is not told that counsel will be furnished if he cannot afford one, his confession will not be excluded unless there is some evidence that the defendant was indigent at the time of the interrogation.” Here, the defendant presented no evidence of indigency. In fact, Post’s testimony at trial indicated he had been employed, attended college, and owned a car. The court considered the lack of an explicit indigency warning a harmless error under these circumstances. The court cited Miranda v. Arizona, noting that the warning’s applicability hinged on the suspect’s indigency. The Court also pointed to the fact that a police officer said that they would ask Post’s parents to get an attorney for him if he wanted one, and his parents were in the station house at the time of questioning.