Lead Opinion
The testimony adduced at the Huntley hearing established that on the basis of eyewitness evidence that he had burglarized a residence in the Village of Wurtsboro, Sullivan County, the State Police took defendant into custody at approximately 1:00 p.m. on October 7, 1993. Defendant was read the Miranda warnings and voluntarily submitted to questioning about the Wurtsboro burglary, giving an essentially exculpatory account. He was formally charged at approximately 2:00 p.m., at which time the Miranda warnings were again administered, and defendаnt voluntarily submitted to further questioning concerning the Wurtsboro burglary and a number of other burglaries. In the face of defеndant’s repeated protestations of innocence, at approximately 4:00 p.m. the police asked defendant if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. Defendant agreed and was transported by State Police investigators to the Troop F Barracks, arriving at approximately 5:00 p.m.
For the next 45 minutes, defendant was left alone in a room while the investigators talked with the troop polygraphist in order to decide on the questions that would be asked during the examination. A list of 11 unsolved burglaries was compiled. Then, defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights and told that he did not have to answer any questions and could stop the questioning at any time. He indicated that he wanted to take the test and was then questioned concerning his medical, psychological and family history and prior criminal activities whilе the polygraphist set up the test, a process that took approximately two hours. At approximаtely 7:45 p.m., defendant was hooked up to the machine and asked about his role in the 11 burglaries under investigation. He immediately began to admit his involvement in several of the burglaries, and the questioning proceeded in that cоnnection for a period of time, although the actual polygraph test was never administered. At
On the facts present here, we are by no means persuaded that the police utilized the polygraph in a "psychologically coercive manner”. Applying the standard that poliсe stratagems will be permitted and not render a confession involuntary unless there is a showing that "the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process * * * or that a promise or threat was made that cоuld induce a false confession” (People v Tarsia,
Our reading of the testimony credited by County Court discloses no evidence of any misrepresentation with respect to the accuracy of the procedure, the admissibility of the results or the exаminer’s conclusions as to defendant’s veracity (see, People v Deskovic, supra, at 580; People v Dyla, supra, at 443; People v Sohn, supra, at 556) or evidence of police stratagems or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny defendant due process. Notably, in view of the fact that the stated objective of the polygraph test was to determine the truth of defendant’s claims of innocence, thе decision to abort the test when defendant abandoned those claims was entirely reasonable (see, People v Di Fabio, suprа, at 920-921). Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s reliance upon events taking place subsequent to defеndant’s inculpatory statements, such as the request that defendant sign his polygraph chart, which could not have any bearing on their voluntariness (see, supra, at 920). Finally, it is undisputed that defendant willingly participated in the testing, and, in view of the frequent administration of the Miranda warnings and the many breaks in the questioning, we
Defendаnt’s additional arguments have been considered and found unavailing.
Concurrence Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
I respectfully dissent.
The record reveals that defendant was held in custody for nine hours before making the inculpatory statements. During that time he was subjected to prolonged periods of interrogation (see, People v Holland,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.