People v. Kaltenbach, 457 N.E.2d 791 (NY 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Kaltenbach, 457 N.E.2d 791 (NY 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · …the court's declarations-that defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer; that he was facing a serious charge; and that, if convicted, he could receive a year's imprisonment-did not satisfy the duty to make a searching inquiry at p. 798 ✓
50 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Blue (6×)
NY · 2024 · confidence medium
People v Kaltenbach , 60 NY2d 797, 798-799 [1983] ["The court's declarations—that defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer; that he was facing a serious charge; and that, if convicted, he could receive a year's imprisonment—did not satisfy the duty to make a searching inquiry"];1 [FN1] 0 People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 21 [1982] ["The court's declarations that defendant was 'facing a very serious charge' and that 'your own best interests are probably served by having a lawyer represent you' simply did not satisfy the duty to make a 'searching inquiry' "]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Abdullah
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
In other words, a "searching inquiry" is required to "warn defendant of the risks inherent in representing himself [or herself]" and to "apprise him [or her] of the value of counsel" ( People v Kaltenbach , 60 NY2d 797, 799 [1983] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Crampe , 17 NY3d 469, 481 [2011], cert denied 565 US 1261 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Myers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
To ascertain whether a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, voluntary and intelligent, a trial court must engage in a sufficient "searching inquiry," aimed at determining whether the defendant understands and "appreciate[s] the 'dangers and disadvantages'" of self-representation ( People v White , 56 NY2d 110, 117 [1982], quoting Faretta v California , 422 US 806, 835 [1975]; see People v Slaughter , 78 NY2d at 491 ; People v Kaltenbach , 60 NY2d 797, 798-799 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 799 [1983] [court’s declarations that defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer, that he was facing a serious charge, and that, if convicted, he could receive a year’s imprisonment failed to adequately warn]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1178 [1983] [court’s declaration that defendant was “facing a very serious charge” and that his “own best interests are probably served by having a lawyer represent you” were “woefully inadequate”]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 799 [1983] [court’s declarations that defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer, that he was facing a serious charge, and that, if convicted, he could receive a year’s imprisonment failed to adequately warn]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1178 [1983] [court’s declaration that defendant was “facing a very serious charge” and that his “own best interests are probably served by having a lawyer represent you” were “woefully inadequate”]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Crampe
NY · 2011 · confidence medium
To ascertain whether a waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent, a court must undertake a “ searching inquiry” designed to ££insur[e] that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” (People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 582 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21 [1982], rearg dismissed 57 NY2d 776 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1178 [1983] [to ascertain the validity of a waiver, “the court should undertake a sufficiently searching inquiry of the defendant to be reasonably certain that …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Here, the court failed to make any inquiry with respect to defendant’s election to proceed pro se, thus failing to “accomplish the goals of adequately warning [the] defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising [the] defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” (People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520 [1998], citing People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 798-799 [1983]; see Arroyo, 98 NY2d at 103-104 ; Slaughter, 78 NY2d at 491-492 ; People v Wardlaw, 18 AD3d 106, 108-109 [2005], lv granted 5 NY3d 771 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Providence
NY · 2004 · confidence medium
The “searching inquiry” undertaken when a defendant waives the right to counsel in favor of self-representation is aimed at insuring that the defendant “was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” (People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 492 [1991]; see also People v Mitchell, 61 NY2d 580, 584 [1984]; People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 798-799 [1983]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1178 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Grune (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Term. · 1995 · confidence medium
Since the record is devoid of any inquiry as to defendant’s awareness of the risks involved in self-representation, we find that denial of the request was error and defendant’s conviction cannot stand (see, People v Kaltenbach, supra, at 799; People v Sawyer, supra, at 21-22 ; People v White, supra, at 119 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · confidence medium
To advise a defendant that the charges are serious, that they could result in a State prison sentence and that he would be better served by legal representation is not sufficient (see, People v Kaltenbach, supra, at 799; People v Sawyer, supra).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Rogers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
The purpose of the requisite "searching inquiry" is to "warn [the] defendant of the risks inherent in representing himself [or herself]" and to "apprise him [or her] of the value of counsel" (People v Crampe, 17 NY3d 469, 481 [2011], cert denied 565 US 1261 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 799 [1983]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Grays
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
While the required searching inquiry need not be conducted in any specific manner, it "'must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication'" ( People v Arroyo , 98 NY2d at 104 , quoting People v Smith , 92 NY2d at 520 ; see People v Kaltenbach , 60 NY2d 797, 799 [1983]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Mitchell
NY · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
M., supra, at p 597; see, also, People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797, 798 ; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21 .) So judged, we hold that the record before us does not support a finding that defendant’s waiver of counsel was effective.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Kurt Kaltenbach, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 27, 1983.
457 N.E.2d 791
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Allan D. Mantel and William Charles Herman for appellant., Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney (Richard E. Weill, Gerald D. Reilly and Anthony J. Seruino of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Defendant was charged in a misdemeanor information with assault in the third degree for hitting his wife with a metal key chain. At arraignment, the court informed defendant of the charge against him and stated that it was a serious charge not to be taken lightly. Upon ascertaining that defendant had read a printed sheet setting forth his right to counsel (see CPL 170.10, subd 5), the court asked defendant if he wished to be represented by counsel. The defendant declined legal representation. There was no further colloquy regarding defendant’s decision. Defendant pleaded not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial. He proceeded to conduct his defense pro se and was convicted.

A defendant charged in a prosecutor’s information with a misdemeanor offense has the statutory right to self-representation (see CPL 170.10, subd 6). A court must permit such self-representation “if it is satisfied that [defendant] made such decision with knowledge of the significance thereof” (CPL 170.10, subd 6). The court has a duty to determine the effectiveness of the waiver by undertaking a “sufficiently searching inquiry for it to be reasonably assured that the defendant appreciated the ‘dangers and[*799] disadvantages’ of giving up the fundamental right to counsel” (People v White, 56 NY2d 110, 117; see People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21).

The court’s declarations — that defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer; that he was facing a serious charge; and that, if convicted, he could receive a year’s imprisonment — did not satisfy the duty to make a searching inquiry (People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21, supra). The precautionary inquiry in this case failed to adequately warn defendant of the “risks inherent in representing himself” or apprise him of “the value of counsel” (People v Harris, 85 AD2d 742, 744, affd on opn below 58 NY2d 704). Consequently, defendant’s waiver of counsel was ineffective, and he is entitled to a new trial (see People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21-22, supra; People v White, 56 NY2d 110, 119, supra).

In light of this disposition, there is no occasion to reach defendant’s other arguments.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.