Title: The People v. Jeffrey D. Gibson

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 114  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Jeffrey D. Gibson,
            Appellant.
Vincent F. Gugino, for appellant.
Michael J. Hillery, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant Jeffrey Gibson was suspected of robbing an
Erie County gas station at gunpoint in July 2005.  He was
subsequently arrested on a bench warrant stemming from an
unrelated matter in which his indelible right to counsel had
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 114
attached by virtue of an attorney's entry into the case.*  While
incarcerated, defendant asked to speak to a detective he had
known for several years.  The detective brought defendant from
his cell to an office for the conversation.  
Hoping to obtain a DNA sample from defendant, the
detective brought out a pack of cigarettes and defendant asked to
smoke one.  The detective obliged and the two men smoked while
defendant discussed problems he was having with a landlord.  They
did not discuss the gas station robbery or any other criminal
matter.  Eventually, defendant extinguished the cigarette in an
ashtray and he was returned to his cell.  The detective took
possession of the ashtray and the cigarette butt left by
defendant.  
The DNA from defendant's saliva was extracted from the
cigarette remains and was found to conclusively match the DNA
found on an article of clothing that was believed to have been
worn by the person who robbed the gas station.  Defendant was
indicted for the robbery and, following a jury trial, he was
convicted of robbery in the first degree.  The Appellate Division
affirmed (74 AD3d 1700 [4th Dept 2010]) and a dissenting Justice
granted leave to appeal (15 NY3d 780 [2010]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the collection of
* The People do not contend that defendant's right to
counsel had not been triggered in the matter for which he was in
custody when the facts relevant to this appeal occurred (cf.
People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 385 n 6 [2011]).
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 114
defendant's DNA while he was in custody did not contravene his
indelible right to counsel.  The People do not dispute that the
attachment of that right precluded the police from questioning
defendant about any criminal matter (see People v Burdo, 91 NY2d
146, 150 [1997]).  But the detective here did not ask defendant
about a criminal case, and his actions -- displaying a pack of
cigarettes and providing one to defendant at his request -- were
not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (see
e.g. People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, 321 [1984], cert denied 472 US
1007 [1985]).  The DNA that defendant voluntarily deposited on
the cigarette butt was not a "response" or "statement" subject to
exclusion under New York's right to counsel rules because the
transfer of bodily fluids was not a communicative act that
disclosed "the contents of defendant's mind" (People v Havrish, 8
NY3d 389, 395 [2007], cert denied 552 US 886 [2007]).  Nor did
the detective coerce defendant into providing the DNA evidence or
subject him to the functional equivalent of an uncounseled
decision to consent to a search (see People v Esposito, 68 NY2d
961, 962 [1986]; People v Johnson, 48 NY2d 565, 568-569 [1979]). 
Rather, defendant initiated the interaction by summoning the
detective, requesting a cigarette and abandoning the cigarette
butt.  Based on these facts, County Court aptly noted that the
detective simply "capitalized on the situation that manifested
itself through [] defendant's own actions."
Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent they
- 3 -
- 4 -
No. 114
are reviewable, lack merit.
  
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.  
Decided June 14, 2011
- 4 -