In an October 2023 Murder case before the Appellate Division, First Department, the defendant argued that several of his incriminating statements to police officers should have been suppressed by the lower court. The defendant was originally convicted of murder in the second degree, and the lower court sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements. The higher court weighed the evidence and ended up agreeing with the defendant, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.
The Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, police officers responded to a 911 call on the evening in question at the defendant’s home. The defendant himself made the call, reporting that an unknown person had invaded their home and killed his wife. Both the defendant and his wife were taken to the hospital, then, after the defendant’s wife died, the defendant was brought into the station for questioning.
Officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask him questions about the incident. At first, the defendant stuck with his story, that an unknown intruder had stabbed his wife. Then, however, the officers told the defendant that he was not being arrested and that the statements would “not necessarily” be used against him. At that point, the defendant admitted to being the one to kill his wife.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements. The lower court denied the motion; the defendant was found guilty of the murder; and the defendant promptly appealed.
The Court’s Decision
On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should not have denied his motion to suppress. It was misleading, said the defendant, for the officers to tell him that he was not being arrested and that his statements would not necessarily be used against him in any way. These statements violated the defendant’s rights, and the lower court should have recognized this violation when ruling on his motion.
Looking at the evidence, the higher court agreed with the defendant. While the officers originally did their duty by giving the defendant Miranda warnings, it was unacceptable that they misled the defendant into thinking his statements were not going to be used against him. The resulting incriminating statements should have been suppressed by the trial court.
The defendant’s conviction was therefore vacated, and his case was sent back to the lower court for an entirely new trial.
Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of New York?
At Tilem & Associates, we understand how daunting it can be to face criminal charges in New York, especially those related to a violent crime. Our attorneys are experienced litigators with a client-centered mindset, determined to get you the results that you need. For a free and confidential consultation with a member of our team, call us today at 877-377-8666. You can also fill out our online form to have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.