People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725 (1977)
A confession is admissible if, despite a potentially deficient written Miranda warning, the totality of the evidence demonstrates the defendant received adequate oral warnings and voluntarily waived their rights; further, the prosecution is not required to produce every witness to a confession if there’s no indication the uncalled witness would offer contradictory testimony.
Summary
Dlugash pleaded guilty to burglary, but appealed, arguing his confession should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings were inadequate and the prosecution failed to call all witnesses to the confession. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that despite a potentially deficient written warning, the evidence showed Dlugash received adequate oral warnings and waived his rights. The court further held that the prosecution wasn’t required to produce every witness to the confession, particularly since Dlugash knew of the uncalled witness and chose not to call him, and there was no indication this witness would have offered contradictory testimony.
Facts
Dlugash was arrested and charged with burglary in the third degree. Prior to questioning, Dlugash received Miranda warnings, which included a printed statement on a Mount Vernon Police Department form. The form stated, in part, “We cannot ourselves furnish you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, when you go to court.” Dlugash confessed to the crime. At the confession suppression hearing, evidence was presented concerning the warnings Dlugash received, both written and oral.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Dlugash’s motion to suppress the confession, finding that Dlugash had received full and sufficient constitutional pre-interrogation advice and warnings, and that he had waived his rights voluntarily. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s findings and the conviction. Dlugash appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Dlugash’s confession should have been suppressed due to allegedly inadequate Miranda warnings.
2. Whether the People were required to produce both detectives who witnessed the confession to establish its admissibility.
Holding
1. No, because despite a potentially deficient written warning, the totality of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Dlugash received adequate oral warnings and voluntarily waived his rights.
2. No, because the prosecution is not required to call every witness to a confession if there is no indication that the uncalled witness would give different testimony, and the defendant knew of the witness’s identity but chose not to call him.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that while the written statement on the Mount Vernon Police Department form, standing alone, would be considered deficient under Miranda v. Arizona, any claimed inadequacies were overcome by other evidence produced at the hearing that showed Dlugash received full, proper, and sufficient oral constitutional pre-interrogation advice and warnings. The court emphasized that the trial court, in findings affirmed by the Appellate Division, was warranted in concluding that Dlugash waived his rights and that the confession was voluntarily given.
Regarding the second issue, the court stated that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution “to call at trial every witness to a crime or to make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all law enforcement investigatory work” (quoting People v. Stridiron, 33 NY2d 287, 292). The court noted that, as in Stridiron, there was no showing that the uncalled witness would have given different testimony. Moreover, Dlugash knew of the witness’s identity and chose not to call him. Therefore, Dlugash’s claim of denial of due process or unlawful suppression of evidence by the prosecution was unavailing. The Court cited Moore v. Illinois, holding that a due process claim requires, among other elements, a suppression of evidence, after a request by the accused, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and material to either guilt or punishment. The court found none of these elements were present here.