You are here: / ADMISSIONS

Tag Archive for: ADMISSIONS

, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly denied a motion to suppress a statement, finding that the statement was not tainted by an unwarned statement made an hour earlier.  In addition, over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department held that the failure to explain the five-year post release supervision (PRS) portion of the sentence when the plea was taken did not require reversal, in part because the error was not preserved:

Although defendant made an inculpatory statement after she was placed in a patrol vehicle and additional inculpatory statements after she was transported to the police station, the court granted suppression of the statement made in the patrol vehicle on the ground that her detention constituted an arrest for which the police officer lacked probable cause. The court refused, however, to suppress the subsequent statements at the police station based on its determination that they were “attenuated from the unlawful arrest.” We agree with the People that the record supports the court’s determination .. . Although there was a period of only one hour between the time of the illegal arrest and the time of defendant’s statements at the police station …, we note that defendant was given Miranda warnings before the stationhouse interview … Moreover, the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator constitutes a significant intervening event … inasmuch as that identification provided the police with probable cause for defendant’s arrest…  Lastly, there was no flagrant misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police officer who took defendant into custody … . * * *

In this case the prosecutor informed the court,“ ‘before the imposition of sentence’ ” (…see generally CPL 220.60 [3]), that he could not recall whether PRS had been discussed at the time of the plea. The prosecutor noted that they “should probably make a record of that . . . so it is clear.” At that point, the court informed defendant that it “intend[ed] to make a five year period of [PRS].” Defendant was then asked if she had a chance to talk about that with her attorney, and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Defendant was also asked if she understood that the PRS was a “part of [her] plea” and that she would be on parole supervision for five years at the end of her prison sentence. Defendant answered, “[c]orrect.”  When asked if she “still wish[ed] to go through with sentencing today,” defendant again answered, “[y]es.” In our view, the record is clear that “defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition…”… .  People v Turner, 529, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case May Constitute Brady Material

In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined a witness’ [Henry’s] agreement to testify about a “jailhouse confession” in an unrelated case may have constituted Brady material in defendant’s case because she also entered an agreement to testify about defendant’s “jailhouse confession.”  The Court determined reversal was not required because the potential Brady error was harmless under the facts:

“….[A]ssuming, without deciding, that the full terms of Henry’s cooperation agreement – including those aspects pertaining to the other matter – were Brady material subject to disclosure, reversal is not required.   Where, as here, nondisclosure follows the defense’s specific request for materials, evidence is deemed material and reversal is required only “if there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different”… . People v Johnson, 104919, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

,

Questioning at Home Did Not Trigger Need for Miranda Warnings

The Third Department determined the questioning of defendant by police at defendant’s home did not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings:

At  the  Huntley  hearing, the  two  officers testified that they  informed  defendant  of  the  reason  for  their  visit, were invited into his home, sat around a dining room table and engaged in small talk about  various topics. Defendant was not restrained, he was cooperative and the conversation was cordial, including when discussing the victim’s allegations. The questions regarding the victim were investigatory and not accusatory in tone. After about 30 minutes to an hour and defendant’s acknowledgment of the veracity of some of the  victim’s claims, he  was  asked  to  accompany  the  officers to  the Sheriff’s Department,  he  agreed  to  go  in the  officers’ unmarked vehicle and he was not at any time placed in handcuffs.  People v Vieou, 104521, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, ,

Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant’s murder conviction should stand, even though he was questioned in violation of his right to counsel:

While in jail for a violation of probation (VOP), defendant was twice questioned by police about the victim’s disappearance, the second time after her body had been discovered. Counsel was not present. Defendant claims that his constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was represented by counsel on the VOP at the time, as evidenced by the notation made on an arraignment memorandum by the Town Justice who arraigned him on the VOP.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s indelible right to counsel was violated, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt…. There is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of the two challenged statements affected defendant’s conviction in view of the other evidence, including two counseled statements to police and testimony of numerous witnesses, that overwhelmingly established his guilt.  People v Augustine, No 109, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

, ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

,

Gang Affiliation and Prior Drug Offenses Admissible Under Molineux in Murder Case/Motion to Suppress Statement Made When Questioning Continued After Defendant Stated He Did Not Want to Answer Any More Questions Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation and uncharged drug offenses were admissible in defendant’s murder trial under Molineux.  In addition, the Third Department determined defendant’s statements made after he said he didn’t want to answer any more questions should have been suppressed.  [The Third Department rejected the People’s argument that the suppression issue was decided in a prior prosecution and the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply.] With respect to the Molineux and “right to remain silent” issues, the Court wrote:

“Generally speaking, evidence of uncharged  crimes or prior bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions – motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity – or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provide[s] necessary background or complete[s] a witness’s narrative” … . Here, defendant’s drug-related activities and purported gang membership provided necessary background information, explained how [the other parties] and defendant knew one another (as well as why defendant’s acquaintances went along with his plan to rob the weed spot[where the murder took place]) and, viewed in the context of the activities that occurred prior to the shooting, established both defendant’s awareness of the weed spot and a motive for the shooting; thus, such “evidence was highly probative of several relevant and material issues at trial and genuinely interwoven with the facts surrounding the shooting” … .

The case law makes clear that “[a] defendant’s invocation of the right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored” … once the right is asserted in an “unequivocal and unqualified” fashion … Whether  a defendant’s  request in this regard is “unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to  the  circumstances surrounding  the  request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” … .  People v Johnson, 104081, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

 

,

Statements Made by Defendant During First 15 Hours of a 60-Hour Interrogation Not Coerced

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly ruled that the defendant’s statements during the first 15 hours of a 60-hour interrogation need not be suppressed as the product of coercion.  People v Collins, KA 09-00932, 1367, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

,

Admission in Evidence of Defendant’s Statements About Prior Murders Did Not Rise to a Constitutional Injury—Harmless Error Doctrine Applied

The Court of Appeals held that the admission at trial of statements made by the defendant indicating he had committed murders other than the murder with which he was charged “did not rise to the level of constitutional injury such as ineffectiveness of counsel or juror partiality.”  Therefore, the harmless error doctrine applied and, in light of the evidence against the defendant, the conviction was affirmed.  People v Byer, No 84, CtApp, 4-25-13

 

,

Convictions Based Entirely Upon Confession Reversed; Error to Allow Experiment in Evidence; Proof of Victim’s Helplessness Sufficient

In this sexual-crimes case, the Third Department discussed (among other issues): (1) the application of speedy trial rules when an initial indictment is dismissed and then charges stemming from the same incident are brought more than six months later in a second indictment; (2) the sufficiency of proof of the victim’s helplessness (intoxication); and (3) the inadmissibility of an experiment (opening a door with a credit card to demonstrate how defendant could have entered the house) which had nothing to do with the trial evidence.  All but two of the convictions were affirmed.  In reversing the two convictions which were based entirely on the defendant’s confession, the Third Department wrote:

We find that defendant’s convictions of criminal sexual act in the first degree must  be  reversed. “A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him [or her] without additional proof that the offense charged  has been  committed”  (CPL 60.50). While this additional proof “need  not corroborate every detail of the confession” …, both  of defendant’s criminal sexual act convictions were based solely upon his uncorroborated admissions that he  performed  oral sex on the victim. Defendant’s presence at the scene did not provide the necessary corroboration because the issue is not his identity or connection to the crime but, instead, whether  the crimes  occurred  at all. As there was no corroborating proof “of whatever weight,” these charges must be dismissed… . People v Bjork, 104014, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

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