People v. Griswold, 444 N.E.2d 977 (N.Y. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Griswold, 444 N.E.2d 977 (N.Y. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Scippio, 144 A.D.3d 1184 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016)
How cited ↗
Cited for
58 N.Y.2d at 635 cited at this page1 citing case
  • People v. Scippio, 144 A.D.3d 1184 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
    Defendant also argues that County Court should have granted his request for a jury charge instructing that, if the jury were to find that he had requested an attorney before making incriminating statements to law enforcement, then his stat…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Robert S. Griswold
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 16, 1982.
Published opinion
444 N.E.2d 977
1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3884
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert J. Simpson, District Attorney, for appellant., La Vern M. Brister for respondent.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A new trial is warranted to resolve the issue of whether defendant invoked his right to counsel prior to making certain incriminating statements. In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213), we determined that the principle enunciated in People v Cunningham (49 NY2d 203), that once a suspect in custody requests the assistance of counsel he cannot be questioned further in the absence of an attorney, must be applied retroactively. Inasmuch as the defendant made a suppression motion in connection with his original trial, he may now assert his Cunningham argument on the appeal from his retrial (see People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 66).

In addition, we believe that the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested charge on the issue of voluntariness. Defendant sought to have the court charge that the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the defendant had asked for counsel could be considered by the jury in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s subsequent confession. The charge was relevant to an issue before the jury and we perceive no valid reason for its denial.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.