Summary
In People v. Arthur (supra, p. 329), the court stated: "Once the police know or have been apprised of the fact that the defendant is represented by counsel or that an attorney has communicated with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant, the accused's right to counsel attaches; and this right is not dependent upon the existence of a formal retainer.
Summary of this case from People v. PaulinOpinion
Argued November 14, 1968
Decided February 19, 1969
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOHN H. BENOIT, J.
Matthew Muraskin and James J. McDonough for appellant.
William Cahn, District Attorney ( Henry P. De Vine of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. Defendant's admission "I did it" prior to receiving warning of his constitutional rights was made to police without "custodial interrogation" in response to a question directed to a third person, and accordingly is admissible as a "volunteered" statement ( People v. Torres, 21 N.Y.2d 49, 54; People v. Rodney P. [ Anonymous], 21 N.Y.2d 1). The courts below properly found that defendant's subsequent confession was made after he was fully informed of his constitutional rights and that defendant affirmatively waived those rights ( People v. Stephen J.B., 23 N.Y.2d 611, decided herewith).
Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN concur.
Judgment affirmed.