## Facts

- Malik Dawson, age 19, was arrested about a week after an alleged sexual offense and subjected to custodial interrogation.
- Police administered Miranda warnings before questioning.
- During questioning, Dawson made statements referring to contacting or speaking with a lawyer.
- Dawson later sought suppression of his incriminating statements, arguing he had unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and questioning should have stopped.
- The trial court denied suppression; the statements were admitted, and Dawson was convicted.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no unequivocal invocation of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals granted leave and reviewed whether the lower courts’ determination was reviewable and correct.

## Issues

1. Whether Dawson’s statements during custodial interrogation constituted an unequivocal request for counsel triggering New York’s indelible right to counsel and requiring cessation of questioning.
2. Whether, given the applicable standard of review, the Court of Appeals could disturb the lower courts’ determination that the request was not unequivocal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
- The Court held there was record support for the determination that Dawson did not unequivocally invoke the right to counsel.
- The Court characterized Dawson’s remarks and demeanor as indicating only a conditional interest in counsel, tied to avoiding delay while he wished to speak with police.
- Because the question was treated as a mixed question of law and fact with record support, it was beyond further review by the Court of Appeals.
- Judge Wilson dissented, concluding the interrogation record showed repeated, unequivocal requests to contact counsel and that continued questioning required suppression.

## Legal Principles

- Once a defendant in custody unequivocally requests counsel, the right to counsel may not be waived outside counsel’s presence.
- A suggestion that counsel might be desired, notice that counsel exists, or a question whether counsel should be obtained is insufficient to invoke the indelible right to counsel.
- Whether a request is unequivocal is determined in context, including the defendant’s words, demeanor, and manner of expression.
- The unequivocal-invocation determination is a mixed question of law and fact; where the record supports the lower courts’ determination, further review is unavailable in the Court of Appeals.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals left Dawson’s conviction intact, holding that the record supported the lower courts’ finding that his references to counsel were conditional rather than an unequivocal invocation requiring interrogation to cease, and that this mixed question was not subject to further review.


People v. Dawson, 38 N.Y.3d 1055 (N.Y. 2022)