People v. Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366 (1978)

When a suspect in custody requests an attorney, interrogation must cease, and the police must scrupulously honor that request before resuming questioning; any resumption of interrogation without providing the suspect a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel renders subsequent statements inadmissible.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a confession was inadmissible because police resumed interrogation of the defendant too quickly after he requested counsel, failing to scrupulously honor his request. After being arrested and read his rights, Grant requested counsel. Ten minutes later, after an officer informed him of the evidence against him, he waived his rights and confessed. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that when a suspect requests counsel, interrogation must cease until counsel is present, and police actions that undermine the suspect’s decision to seek counsel violate Miranda.

Facts

Earl Stokes was murdered in a Manhattan apartment. Detective Campbell arrested Grant for the killing and seized a handgun from Grant’s room. Campbell asked Grant if he would speak to the District Attorney before advising him of his rights, and Grant agreed. An Assistant District Attorney arrived and advised Grant of his Miranda rights. Grant requested counsel when informed of his right to have an attorney present. Questioning stopped, but Detective Campbell asked the prosecutor to remain because he wanted to speak to Grant again. As Campbell escorted Grant from the room, they passed Grant’s girlfriend. Campbell told Grant they had several witnesses against him, including his girlfriend, and that others playing cards at the scene could identify him. Grant then stated he wanted to speak with the District Attorney.

Procedural History

A pretrial motion to suppress the confession was denied. Grant pleaded guilty to murder after the prosecution presented its case at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Two justices concurred in the result but believed the confession should have been suppressed; however, they deemed the error harmless. Grant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the police violated Miranda standards by resuming interrogation after the defendant requested counsel, thus requiring suppression of the confession.
2. Whether the denial of the motion to suppress, if erroneous, was harmless in light of other evidence presented at trial before the guilty plea.

Holding

1. Yes, because the authorities did not scrupulously honor Grant’s request for counsel before resuming the interrogation.
2. No, because when a conviction is based on a guilty plea, an appellate court can rarely determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, especially when it involves a confession.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the safeguards established in Miranda v. Arizona to ensure statements obtained during custodial interrogation are truly voluntary. The court distinguished between the procedures required when a defendant asserts the right to remain silent and when the right to counsel is invoked. While Michigan v. Mosley clarified that interrogation could resume after a defendant asserted the right to remain silent if that right was “scrupulously honored,” the court here distinguished the request for counsel. The court stated, “the accused having expressed his own view that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, a later decision at the authorities’ insistence to make a statement without counsel’s presence may properly be viewed with skepticism.” Even if interrogation could resume after a request for counsel, the police must “scrupulously honor” the request. The Court found that the authorities failed to do so in Grant’s case. Only ten minutes passed between Grant’s request for counsel and the second interrogation. During that time, Detective Campbell’s comments undermined Grant’s decision to seek counsel. Therefore, the confession should have been suppressed.

Regarding the harmless error argument, the court recognized that harmless error rules are difficult to apply to guilty pleas. The court reasoned that a defendant’s decision to plead guilty can be based on numerous factors, and it is challenging for an appellate court to determine whether the denial of the motion to suppress contributed to the plea. The court concluded it could not rule out the possibility that the defendant pleaded guilty because he believed he could not prevail, given the confession, noting that he preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. Therefore, the plea was vacated.