People State New York v. James Bethea

[67 N.Y.2d 364 Page 366] Opinion OF THE COURT This appeal presents the question whether in view of the possible inconsistency between our decision in People v Chapple (38 N.Y.2d 112) and that of the Supreme Court in Oregon v Elstad (470 U.S. 298) the rule declared by us in Chapple remains viable. We conclude that the mandate of NY Constitution, article I, § 6 that [no] person * * * shall * * * be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself would have little deterrent effect if the police know that they can as part of a continuous chain of events question a suspect in custody without warning, provided only they thereafter question him or her again after warnings have been given. The rule of the Chapple case, therefore, continues as a matter of State constitutional law, to govern the admissibility of statements obtained as a result of continuous custodial interrogation.