People v. Faison, 62 N.Y.2d 773 (1984)

A defendant’s claim of deprivation of the state constitutional right to counsel can be raised on appeal even if not initially raised in a suppression motion or at trial, but a sufficient factual record is required for appellate review.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that while a claimed deprivation of the state constitutional right to counsel can be raised on appeal even if not preserved, a sufficient factual record is needed for review. The Court declined to consider the argument that an outstanding bench warrant should be treated as a pending unrelated charge because there was no evidence that the police knew about the warrant before the defendant’s statement or that the defendant was represented by counsel regarding the warrant.

Facts

The case involves a defendant who made a statement to the police. On appeal, the defendant claimed a deprivation of the right to counsel based on an outstanding bench warrant. However, the record lacked proof that the police knew of the warrant before the statement was taken, or that the defendant had counsel related to the warrant.

Procedural History

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after proceedings in the lower courts. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order. The specific decisions of the lower courts are not detailed in this memorandum opinion, but the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the order below.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s argument that an outstanding bench warrant should be treated as a pending unrelated charge, thus triggering right to counsel protections, can be considered on appeal when the record lacks proof that the police knew of the warrant or that the defendant had counsel related to it.

Holding

No, because there was no proof in the record that the police had knowledge of the bench warrant’s issuance prior to taking defendant’s statement, or that they were otherwise chargeable with notice of any other pending criminal action; nor is there proof that defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the warrant or any pending charge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a deprivation of the state constitutional right to counsel can be raised on appeal even if not preserved initially, citing People v. Samuels and People v. Ermo. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of a sufficient factual record for appellate review, referencing People v. Charleston and People v. De Mauro. The Court refused to address the defendant’s argument regarding the outstanding bench warrant because the record lacked crucial evidence. Specifically, there was no proof that the police were aware of the warrant before the defendant’s statement or that the defendant had counsel related to it. The Court distinguished the case from People v. Baldi, where further proceedings were required because the defendant had informed the police of a pending charge and it was undisputed that the defendant had retained counsel in connection with that charge. The court stated, “Defendant’s argument that an outstanding bench warrant should be treated as a pending unrelated charge within the meaning of our holdings in People v Bartolomeo and People v Smith is not properly presented for our consideration, inasmuch as there is no proof in the record that the police had knowledge of the bench warrant’s issuance prior to taking defendant’s statement…”