59 N.Y.2d 923 (1983)

When a defendant explicitly argues that their statements should be suppressed because they were not fully informed of their right to counsel during police questioning, the prosecution must demonstrate that the complete Miranda warnings, including the right to counsel during questioning, were given.

Summary

Zafarin Hutchinson appealed a conviction, arguing his statements to police should have been suppressed because he wasn’t fully advised of his right to counsel during questioning. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order affirming the conviction. The court found the prosecution failed to prove Hutchinson was informed of his right to have counsel present during questioning, a component of the Miranda warnings he specifically argued was missing. The court vacated the conviction, suppressed the statements, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Facts

Hutchinson was arrested and interrogated by Police Officer Silva. During a pre-trial hearing, Hutchinson moved to suppress statements he made to Officer Silva at his residence and at the transit police district office. He argued the constitutional preinterrogation warnings were deficient.

Procedural History

The suppression court denied Hutchinson’s motion, determining the warnings given were legally sufficient. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Hutchinson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the suppression court erred in denying Hutchinson’s motion to suppress his statements when the prosecution failed to prove he was advised of his right to have counsel present during police questioning.

Holding

Yes, because the prosecution failed to present evidence that Hutchinson was informed of his right to have counsel present during questioning, a critical component of the Miranda warnings, which he specifically challenged.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on Hutchinson’s explicit argument that he was not fully advised of his right to counsel during questioning. The court emphasized that it was the prosecution’s burden to prove the completeness of the Miranda warnings. Because the transcript lacked any evidence that Officer Silva advised Hutchinson of his right to have counsel present during questioning, the court found the suppression court’s denial of the motion to suppress was erroneous. The court stated: “examination of the transcript of the hearing discloses the absence of any proof that the component of the warnings specifically identified by appellant had been given. Accordingly, it was error to have denied the motion to suppress the statements made.” The court noted that any future proceedings regarding a violation of probation, allegedly predicated on the vacated robbery conviction, would not be influenced by the current decision.