## Facts

- The complainant saw her assailant on a Harlem street, watched him run into a nearby building, and learned from bystanders that he was nicknamed “Speedy.”
- A detective went to the building, met a person identifying himself as Speedy’s brother, and learned the suspect’s formal name was Julius Lynes.
- The detective asked the brother to have Speedy call and left his name and phone number at the Manhattan Sex Crimes Squad.
- Hours later, the detective received a call from an unfamiliar male voice asking for him by name; the caller identified himself as “Speedy Julius Lynes” and asked why police were looking for him.
- The detective said, “Your knife was found in an apartment”; the caller exclaimed “Oh no, oh no,” refused to come in, stated police would “have to find” him, and hung up.
- The detective did not know the defendant and could not identify the caller by voice, but the prosecution offered the conversation at trial.
- In a separate incident, after the defendant was arraigned on an unrelated charge and told a warrant existed for his arrest, he asked an escorting officer about the warrant.
- The officer responded generally that “they are looking for you”; the defendant then volunteered that he had “taken care of” a woman and that this was likely why the warrant had issued.
- The defendant had not yet received Miranda warnings when he made the statement; it was admitted at trial.
- A jury convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery, and first-degree burglary; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a telephone conversation was properly authenticated and admissible when the listener could not recognize the caller’s voice and the caller’s identity rested on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether a custodial, pre-Miranda statement was inadmissible because it resulted from interrogation or its functional equivalent rather than being volunteered.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions.
- The telephone conversation was properly admitted because circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported a finding that the caller was the defendant.
- The defendant’s pre-Miranda statement to the escorting officer was properly admitted as voluntary and not the product of interrogation or its functional equivalent.

## Legal Principles

- A telephone conversation may be authenticated by circumstantial evidence; voice recognition is not required if surrounding facts permit an inference that it is improbable the caller was someone other than the purported speaker.
- A caller’s bare, self-identifying statement is insufficient, by itself, to establish identity when the listener cannot recognize the voice.
- The trial judge determines whether a foundation exists for admission; once admitted, the jury decides the weight of the evidence.
- Miranda excludes statements stemming from custodial interrogation; volunteered statements are admissible even if made while in custody before warnings.
- Conduct constitutes interrogation (or its equivalent) when police words or actions should reasonably be anticipated to evoke an incriminating response.

## Conclusion

The court held that the phone call was adequately authenticated by timing, the prior request to call, the caller’s knowledge of the detective and police unit, and the caller’s incriminating reaction, and that the defendant’s pre-Miranda custodial statement was admissible because it was volunteered in response to a non-interrogative remark.


People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 401 N.E.2d 405 (N.Y. 1980)