People v. Robles, 72 N.Y.2d 689 (1988)

The right to counsel on a prior charge expires with the disposition of that charge, and police may question a suspect on new charges after the prior charges are resolved, even if the police deliberately waited for the disposition to avoid the implications of People v. Rogers.

Summary

Defendants Robles and Murray were each suspected of murder while being prosecuted for unrelated, less serious crimes. Knowing they couldn’t question them on the murder charges while the prior charges were pending due to their right to counsel on those charges, the police waited until the prior charges were resolved. After giving Miranda warnings, the police questioned each defendant without counsel, and they made incriminating statements. The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendants’ right to counsel derived from the prior charges expired with the disposition of those charges. Therefore, the statements were admissible, even though the police deliberately waited to question them.

Facts

Robles was linked to a murder and multiple robberies at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Police discovered Robles had a pending indictment in New York County with assigned counsel and was out on bail.
Investigators surveilled Robles’s court appearances for the pending charges. Robles eventually pleaded guilty, with sentencing scheduled later.
Detectives intentionally delayed arresting Robles for the homicide due to the active pending case and his existing legal representation on it.
After Robles completed his sentence on the prior charges, he was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and confessed to the murder and robberies without counsel present.

Murray was implicated in a robbery-homicide in Greenwich Village through an informant. Murray was later arrested for shoplifting and assigned a Legal Aid attorney.
Detectives monitoring Murray’s shoplifting case learned of his arrest and the assigned counsel. An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) dismissed the shoplifting charge after conferring with the ADA in charge of the homicide investigation to allow police to question Murray about the homicide without counsel present.
Immediately after the dismissal, detectives approached Murray, who agreed to go to the station. After Miranda warnings, he confessed to the robbery and was arrested for murder.

Procedural History

People v. Robles: The trial court denied Robles’s motion to suppress his confession. Robles pleaded guilty, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
People v. Murray: The trial court denied Murray’s motion to suppress his confession. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one dissenting Justice granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether inculpatory statements made after disposition of prior charges, on which the defendants were represented by counsel, should be suppressed because the police deliberately waited until the disposition of those charges to question the defendants about new, unrelated charges to circumvent the rule in People v. Rogers.

Holding

No, because the right to counsel on the prior charges expires with the disposition of those charges. The procedures employed by the investigators in these cases did not violate the defendants’ right to counsel, and the suppression motions were properly denied.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on People v. Mann and People v. Colwell, which held that uncounseled interrogation on new charges is permissible after the dismissal of prior charges for which the defendant was represented. The Court rejected the argument that the deliberate attempt to circumvent People v. Rogers violated the defendants’ right to counsel, noting that the Rogers rule’s primary concern was protecting the attorney-client relationship on the pending charges.

The Court clarified that Rogers established a limited, derivative right to counsel on unrelated charges to protect the right to counsel in the pending proceeding. Deferring questioning until after the suspect is no longer represented on the prior charges protects the interests articulated in Rogers as fully as questioning the suspect in the presence of counsel while the prior charges are pending.

The Court also reasoned that a rule requiring police to ascertain the motives of investigators in delaying questioning would create unworkable difficulties and impede investigations. The Court emphasized the importance of an objective measure to guide law enforcement and the courts, which focuses on the suspect’s status at the time of the interrogation. The court distinguished People v. Osgood, finding no evidence that the dismissal of the shoplifting charge against Murray was a ploy to temporarily suspend the right to counsel.