61 N.Y.2d 790 (1984)
When a suspect in custody requests counsel, they cannot be questioned without an attorney present, and this principle applies retroactively; furthermore, a defendant is entitled to a jury charge instructing them to consider evidence that the defendant requested counsel when determining the voluntariness of a confession.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order for a new trial. The court held that the principle established in People v. Cunningham, stating that a suspect who requests counsel cannot be questioned without an attorney present, applies retroactively. Since the defendant had made a suppression motion, he could assert his Cunningham argument on appeal from his retrial. Additionally, the court found that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that they could consider testimony about the defendant’s requests for counsel when determining the voluntariness of his confession.
Facts
The defendant, Ready, made incriminating statements that the prosecution sought to admit at trial. Prior to trial, Ready made a suppression motion. Two witnesses testified that Ready had requested counsel. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that they could consider the testimony of the two witnesses regarding Ready’s request for counsel in determining whether Ready’s confession was voluntary.
Procedural History
The defendant was tried and convicted. He appealed, arguing that his right to counsel had been violated and that the trial court erred in refusing his requested jury charge. The Appellate Division ordered a new trial. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the principle established in People v. Cunningham, that a suspect in custody who requests counsel cannot be questioned without an attorney present, applies retroactively to cases on appeal?
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury that they could consider testimony regarding the defendant’s request for counsel when determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession?
Holding
1. Yes, because the Court had already determined in People v. Pepper that the Cunningham principle must be applied retroactively.
2. Yes, because the requested charge was relevant to an issue before the jury, and the court perceived no valid reason for its denial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decisions in People v. Pepper and People v. Cunningham. In People v. Pepper (53 NY2d 213), the court determined that the rule in Cunningham must be applied retroactively. The court reasoned that, because the defendant had made a suppression motion, he could now assert his Cunningham argument on the appeal from his retrial, citing People v. Sanders (56 NY2d 51, 66). The court emphasized the importance of allowing the jury to consider all relevant evidence when determining the voluntariness of a confession. The court stated, “The charge was relevant to an issue before the jury and we perceive no valid reason for its denial.” By denying the requested charge, the trial court prevented the jury from fully considering the circumstances surrounding the confession, potentially impacting their assessment of its voluntariness. This case highlights the importance of providing a jury charge when it is relevant to the issues being presented.