People v. Evans, 58 N.Y.2d 14 (1982)
A defendant’s voluntary pre-plea incriminating statements and testimony given at a co-defendant’s trial are admissible in a subsequent trial, even after the initial guilty plea is vacated, provided the statements were made with the advice of counsel and the plea agreement did not condition their use on the plea’s validity.
Summary
Evans pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery after his motion to suppress station house confessions was denied. As part of the plea bargain, he gave a pre-plea statement and testified against a co-defendant. His initial conviction was reversed on appeal due to the suppressed confessions. Before his second trial, Evans sought to suppress the pre-plea statement and testimony, arguing they were fruits of the poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals held that these statements were admissible because the guilty plea, negotiated with counsel, provided sufficient attenuation, and Evans assumed the risk that the statements could be used against him if the initial conviction was overturned.
Facts
Evans and two others robbed a gas station, during which the attendant was murdered. After being taken to the police station, Evans made statements admitting his involvement. He and a co-defendant, Fuller, were indicted for murder and robbery. Evans, unlike Fuller, chose to plea bargain. Evans’ attorney initiated plea negotiations and offered Evans’ cooperation in exchange for a reduced charge. Before the plea, Evans, in the presence of his attorney, gave a detailed statement about the crime to demonstrate his sincerity.
Procedural History
The trial court initially denied Evans’ motion to suppress his station house confessions. Evans pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery. He testified against his co-defendant Thompson at two separate trials. The Appellate Division reversed Evans’ conviction, finding his station house statements were unconstitutionally obtained. On remand, Evans sought to suppress his pre-plea statement and testimony from the Thompson trials. The trial court denied the motion, and Evans pleaded guilty again. The Appellate Division reversed the second conviction, but the Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a defendant’s voluntary pre-plea incriminating statement, made with counsel, is admissible at a subsequent trial after the initial guilty plea is vacated due to improperly obtained initial confessions?
2. Whether the rule in People v. Spitaleri, which prohibits the use of a withdrawn guilty plea against a defendant, should be extended to exclude pre-plea statements and subsequent testimony when the plea is vacated?
Holding
1. No, because the voluntary guilty plea, negotiated with counsel, provided insulating attenuation to the illegally procured initial statement.
2. No, because the defendant received the benefit of the plea bargain, and failing to condition the plea agreement on the inadmissibility of subsequent statements means he assumed the risk of their use if the initial conviction was overturned.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Harrison v. United States, where the defendant’s testimony was compelled by the introduction of illegally obtained confessions. Here, Evans’ pre-plea statement and testimony were made as part of a voluntary plea bargain. The court reasoned that the plea bargain, negotiated with counsel, constituted an independent act of free will, breaking the causal chain between the illegally obtained confessions and the subsequent statements.
The court also declined to extend the rule in People v. Spitaleri, emphasizing that the prosecutor was not seeking to use the vacated plea itself against Evans. Instead, they sought to use Evans’ factual admissions made with the advice and presence of his attorney. The Court emphasized the importance of the plea bargaining process and noted that Evans could have conditioned his plea on the inadmissibility of the statements if his initial suppression motion succeeded. By failing to do so, he assumed the risk that the statements could be used against him.
The court stated, “Under these circumstances, allowing defendant, who received the full benefit of his agreement, to unilaterally inject a new condition into that agreement, permitting retroactive retraction of his testimony thereunder, would unjustifiably deprive the District Attorney, and in turn the public, of the benefits of a fairly negotiated agreement.”