People v. Jones, 21 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jones, 21 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lipka
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
With that said, once the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant "articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney" ( People v Jones , 21 AD3d 429, 429 [2d Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]; see People v Harris , 177 AD3d 1199 , 1203-1204 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 970 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
I completely understand what you're saying and I agree with you, but I don't want to f**k myself." In our view, defendant's marked change in expression and demeanor at this stage of the interrogation, together with his reference to an attorney and his clear statement that he did not want to incriminate himself, constituted an unequivocal request for counsel and an exercise of his right to remain silent ( see People v Esposito , 68 NY2d 961, 962 [1986]; People v Roman , 175 AD3d 1198 , 1199 [2019]; People v Bethea , 159 AD3d 710 , 711 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1115 [2018]; People v Slocum , 133…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
nycountyct · 2015 · confidence medium
As to the right to counsel question, the court finds that the defendant unequivocally requested counsel at approximately 4:50 p.m. when he asked, “Can I talk to, like [sic], my lawyer?” (see People v Harris, 93 AD3d 58, 68 [2d Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 912 [2012], quoting People v Jones, 21 AD3d 429, 429 [2d Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005] [holding that defendant’s statements “ ‘maybe you should talk to my attorney about it,’ ‘maybe I should talk to my attorney,’ and T think maybe I should talk to my attorney’. . . , viewed in context, articulated his desire to have co…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Higgins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, defendant’s statement at 3:41 a.m., requesting that he be allowed to call his attorney, was sufficiently unequivocal to invoke his right to counsel (see People v Jones, 21 AD3d 429, 429 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]; compare People v Glover, 87 NY2d at 839 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jemmott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Phrases such as “I think” or “maybe” do not necessarily establish that a request for counsel is uncertain or equivocal (see People v Esposito, 68 NY2d at 962 ; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 429, 429 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jemmott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Phrases such as “I think” or “maybe” do not necessarily establish that a request for counsel is uncertain or equivocal (see People v Esposito, 68 NY2d at 962 ; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 429, 429 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Arneo (2×)
nywebsterjustct · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
The facts herein suggest that "the defendant's statements, viewed in context, articulated [her] desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney (see Davis v. United States , 512 U.S. 452 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 ; see also People v. Lubanski , 148 AD2d 947, 948 , 539 N.Y.S.2d 185 )." (People v. Jones, 21 AD3d 429 , 799 N.Y.S.2d 783,784 [2nd Dept 2005] In this case in deciding a mixed question of law and fact, the defendant's statement must be considered an unequivocal request for an attorney.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Thomas Jones
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 8, 2005.
21 A.D.3d 429
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered April 10, 2002, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials is granted, and a new trial is ordered.

Once a suspect in custody unequivocally requests counsel, he may not be questioned further in the absence of an attorney (see People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838 [1995]; People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 [1980]). Whether a particular request is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression, and the particular words used by him (see People v Mitchell, 2 NY3d 272 [2004]; People v Bacalocostantis, 121 AD2d 812, 814 [1986]). Here, the defendant’s statements, viewed in context, articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney (see Davis v United States, 512 US 452 [1994]; see also People v Lubanski, 148 AD2d 947, 948 [1989]). In view of this finding, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress his statements should have been granted (see People v Esposito, 68 NY2d 961 [1986]). Since the error in admitting the defendant’s confession was not harmless, we reverse and order a new trial (see People v Jones, 61 AD2d 264, 268 [1978], affd 47 NY2d 528 [1979]).

[*430] The defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of the foregoing determination. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.