People v. Paulman
11 A.D.3d 878, 782 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11453 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent confession made after full Miranda warnings is not tainted by an intervening, unwarned custodial statement if the defendant had previously made a voluntary, noncustodial confession before any police misconduct occurred.
Facts:
- The defendant called the police to his apartment to report that he had been threatened.
- A New York State Trooper responded, and during the conversation in his apartment, the defendant made voluntary, incriminating statements about crimes against four young female victims.
- The defendant then voluntarily agreed to accompany the Trooper to the State Police barracks.
- At the barracks, while waiting for an investigator, the Trooper asked the defendant to 'jot down' what he had previously stated at his apartment.
- The defendant spent 15 to 30 minutes writing a statement summarizing his earlier noncustodial admissions, without having been read his Miranda rights.
- Approximately 30 minutes after completing the written statement, and after being given food, an investigator took the defendant to an office.
- The investigator then administered Miranda warnings, which the defendant waived before making further oral admissions.
- Finally, the defendant was given written Miranda warnings, which he waived again before providing a final written statement containing further admissions.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in Ontario County Court with multiple offenses, including sodomy and sexual abuse.
- The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress several incriminating statements he made to the police.
- The County Court, serving as the trial court, denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on multiple counts.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, which is an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the failure to provide Miranda warnings for a custodial written statement, which memorialized a prior voluntary noncustodial confession, require suppression of subsequent statements made after valid Miranda warnings were administered?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Unlisted)
No. The failure to provide Miranda warnings for the intervening custodial statement does not require suppression of the subsequent, properly warned statements. The court agreed that the defendant's second statement (the written summary at the barracks) was the product of an unwarned custodial interrogation and should have been suppressed. However, the subsequent statements made after full Miranda warnings were deemed admissible. The court reasoned that a defendant who voluntarily confesses in a noncustodial setting, as the defendant did here in his home, cannot complain that a subsequent, properly-warned confession is tainted by an intervening statement elicited without warnings. Because the defendant had already voluntarily confessed before any illegality, the voluntariness of the subsequent warned statements was so apparent that suppression was not required.
Concurring - Scudder, J.
No. The subsequent statements should not be suppressed, but the majority's reasoning is incorrect. This opinion agrees that the second, unwarned statement was inadmissible and that the subsequent statements were correctly admitted, but it rejects the majority's rationale. Justice Scudder argues that under New York precedent (People v. Chapple), an unwarned custodial statement taints subsequent statements unless there is a 'definite, pronounced break in the interrogation.' The majority's reliance on cases involving 'technically deficient' warnings is misplaced, as this case involved a complete absence of warnings. The correct reason for admitting the subsequent statements is that such a break did occur: the 30-minute interval, the provision of food, and the change in the identity and location of the interrogator were sufficient to attenuate the taint of the prior illegality and return the defendant to the status of one not under the influence of questioning.
Analysis:
This case presents a nuanced exception to New York's 'cat out of the bag' doctrine, which typically suppresses subsequent confessions that are part of a continuous chain of interrogation following an initial unwarned custodial statement. The majority creates a new framework, suggesting that a prior, voluntary noncustodial confession can insulate subsequent, warned confessions from being tainted by an intervening unwarned statement. This approach differs from the traditional 'definite, pronounced break' analysis championed by the concurrence. The decision may provide law enforcement more leeway in situations where a suspect has already confessed voluntarily, potentially weakening the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule as highlighted by the concurring opinion.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Paulman