THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT ALLS, APPELLANT.
83 N.Y.2d 94, 629 N.E.2d 1018, 608 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1993).
December 21, 1993
4 No. 184 (1993 NY Int. 270)
Decided December 21, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Francis J. Constantine, for Appellant.
Melvin Bressler, for Respondent.
LEVINE, J.:
Defendant, an inmate at the Groveland Correctional Facility in
Livingston County (hereinafter the "facility"), was involved in an
incident leading to his indictment for sodomy in the first degree and
assault in the second degree committed against another inmate. After
the alleged victim complained to facility staff concerning the
incident, Corrections Sergeant Michael Rhodes was directed by his
watch commander to question defendant regarding "a fight or an assault
between the two inmates" (emphasis supplied). Rhodes testified that he
went to the building where defendant was housed and, "after finding
out that the basement area was empty, I took him, Alls, down to the
basement to interview him and I asked him about the incident last
night". Defendant made certain admissions regarding assaulting the
complainant.
Concededly, Rhodes questioned defendant without first administering
Miranda warnings (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). County Court held,
however, that the questioning of defendant was not custodial
interrogation so as to require advising him of his Miranda rights. The
Court concluded that Miranda warnings are only required, inter alia:
"(1) (w)here an individual is questioned in 'custodial settings that
have inherently coercive pressures which tend to undermine the
individual's will to resist and compel him to speak'". County Court
then found that the specific circumstances of defendant's
interrogation by Rhodes were not in an "'inherently coercive
atmosphere'", because (1) he was not told that he was not free to
leave or to break off the interview; and (2) he was only removed to an
"office-like setting in the basement which could afford the parties
privacy".
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT ALLS, APPELLANT.
Defendant, an inmate at the Groveland Correctional Facility in Livingston County, was
After the alleged victim complained to facility staff concerning the incident, Corrections
Rhodes testified that he went to the building where defendant was housed and, "after finding
Concededly, Rhodes questioned defendant without first administering Miranda warnings.
The Court concluded that Miranda warnings are only required, inter alia: "here an individual
County Court then found that the specific circumstances of defendant's interrogation by
indicating its agreement with County Court that defendant was not in custody when he gave his
We now modify and remit for a de novo suppression hearing.
Relying on Mathis v United States, defendant's primary contention on appeal is that, since an
First, reliance on Mathis must be tempered by the more recent decision of the United States
Moreover, there is dictum in Illinois v Perkins (supra) that, in our view, precludes reading
The majority's dictum in Illinois v Perkins, that there may be additional instances where the
In the context of a correctional facility environment, despite the undeniable fact of an
Although County Court concluded that defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation
In thus requiring additional, specific coercive official conduct as a sine qua non for
the suppression court effectively converted the added imposition of restraint test into an
The foregoing legal errors require remittal for a new determination of the facts under the
|
