People of the State of New York v. Robert Surles
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure—Miranda right to remain silent; suppression of statements after unequivocal invocation during police interrogation.
The Supreme Court, Monroe County, denied suppression of the defendant’s post-invocation statements and the jury convicted him of assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
The judgment of conviction was reversed; the denial of suppression of all statements made after invocation of the right to remain silent was overturned; a new trial was ordered.
Defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent, and police failed to scrupulously honor it by resuming interrogation about 90 minutes later without rereading Miranda warnings, rendering the ensuing statements inadmissible; the error was not harmless because there was a reasonable possibility the statements contributed to the verdict.
Background
A jury convicted Robert Surles of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1] [with intent to cause serious physical injury, causing such injury by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument]) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1][b] [possession of a loaded firearm with intent to use unlawfully]; [3] [possession of a loaded firearm outside home or place of business]). During custodial interrogation, after being told he was a suspect and asked for his side of the story, Surles repeatedly stated he did not want to talk about it and would rather take his chances. Police stopped questioning and left the room for an extended period, then resumed about 90 minutes later without rereading Miranda warnings, eliciting inculpatory statements.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), denied the defense motion to suppress the statements made after Surles invoked his right to remain silent. The statements were admitted at trial, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Judgment was rendered April 29, 2015.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, granted that part of the omnibus motion seeking suppression of all statements made after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent, and ordered a new trial. The court held that Surles unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent when he said he did not want to talk and would rather take his chances. Although police initially ceased questioning, they did not scrupulously honor the invocation because they resumed interrogation about an hour and a half later without rereading Miranda warnings. The resulting statements should have been suppressed, and their erroneous admission was not harmless given the reasonable possibility they contributed to the verdict.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that once a suspect unequivocally invokes the right to remain silent, police must scrupulously honor the invocation; any later interrogation must be preceded by fresh Miranda warnings to ensure a knowing, voluntary waiver. Failure to do so mandates suppression, and admission of such statements can require reversal if not harmless.
An unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent stops interrogation; if police later resume without re-administering Miranda warnings, any resulting statements are inadmissible and may compel reversal.