You are here: / / UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT...
,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION; ALL OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS, PRE- AND POST-MIRANDA, MUST BE SUPPRESSED; JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ADMITTED FOR A NONHEARSAY PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, determined the initial questioning of the defendant, which was not preceded by the Miranda warnings, constituted interrogation. Therefore, those statements and the entire post-Miranda videotaped interrogation, should have been suppressed. The court further noted that statements made by an accomplice in a controlled phone call were admitted for a nonhearsay purpose. Therefore the jury should have been instructed not to rely on those statements for their truth:

… [T]he pre-Miranda questioning was not mere “small talk,” but, rather, interrogation … . In particular, the detective was aware, when he questioned the defendant about his employment, that Espinal [an accomplice] claimed to know the defendant from previously working with him at a bar. Indeed, when the questioning resumed after administration of Miranda warnings, it concerned the defendant’s work history at bars at or around the time of the incident. Notably, the People assert that they are not claiming that the pedigree exception to the Miranda rule is applicable, and, in any event, the detective admitted at the suppression hearing that, at the time of the interview, he had already recorded the defendant’s pedigree information and that such information does not include an individual’s employment … . Under these circumstances, the defendant was improperly subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights, requiring suppression of those statements … . People v Dorvil, 2019 NY Slip Op 06409, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

You might also like
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.
TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT, WHO LIVED IN INDIA, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES’ SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY OPTED OUT OF THE LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT REQUIRED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA); THEREFORE THE SUPPORT PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AFTER FORECLOSURE WAS COMMENCED WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BUT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE ESTATE OF THE ORIGINAL BORROWER IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE REAR DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT, THE ALLEGATION THE FRONT DRIVER SUDDENLY STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Terms of the Lease and the Related Guaranty of Payment, the Guarantor Was Required to Pay Liquidated Damages in an Amount Equal to the Rent for the Unfinished Term of the Lease Even After the Tenant Was Evicted and the Landlord Had Regained Possession of the Property

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE... WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT...