People v. Chatman
| Decision Date | 14 July 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bobby CHATMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Abraham Werfel, Great Neck, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Alexander P. Schlinger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glass, J.), rendered October 30, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to the police.
Judgment affirmed.
On July 5, 1986, Police Officer George Dandy received a call of a shooting at a private residence in Queens. Upon his arrival there, he was met by a hysterical woman who screamed that the defendant had shot her husband. The officer turned to the defendant and asked him if that was true and he responded "I did shoot him". The officer then asked "Where's the gun?" and the defendant pointed to a window ledge, from which the officer retrieved the weapon.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statement made without Miranda warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the United States Supreme Court held that four appropriate warnings must be given whenever a defendant is a subject of custodial interrogation. Here, the defendant was not in custody nor was he "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at p. 444, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1612); therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. Moreover, the officer's initial question was asked to clarify a volatile situation rather than to elicit evidence of a crime (see, People v. Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014, 466 N.Y.S.2d 957, 453 N.E.2d 1246; People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353). We also note that even were the defendant in custody after admitting to the shooting, the officer's further inquiry as to the location of the gun would have been admissible under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule recognized by the Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550.
The court properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Scotchmer
... ... to obtain incriminating evidence (see, People v Sanchez, 255 A.D.2d 614, 615, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1053; People v Oquendo, 252 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 901; People v Clark, 198 A.D.2d 46, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 870; People v Melvin, 188 A.D.2d 555, 556, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 889; People v Chatman, 122 A.D.2d 148; see also, New York v Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, cf., People v Strickland, 169 A.D.2d 9) ... Likewise, the police sergeant's brief inquiry of defendant upon arriving at the station -- as to what had happened -- was designed to immediately clarify the nature of the ... ...
-
People v. Smith
...facts and circumstances of this case. See e.g. People v. Waiters , 121 A.D.2d 414, 502 N.Y.S.2d 530 (2d Dept. 1986) ; People v. Chatman , 122 A.D.2d 148, 504 N.Y.S.2d 703 (2d Dept. 1986).15 That the defendant was subject to an un-Mirandized custodial interrogation at the precinct had no bea......
-
John C., Matter of
... ... This court affirmed (People v. Quarles, 85 A.D.2d 936, 447 N.Y.S.2d 84) as did a divided Court of Appeals (People v. Quarles, 58 N.Y.2d 664, 458 N.Y.S.2d 520, 444 N.E.2d 984) ... Chatman, 122 A.D.2d 148, 504 N.Y.S.2d 703; People v. Waiters, 121 A.D.2d 414, 502 N.Y.S.2d 530, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 760, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 497 N.E.2d ... ...
- People v. Perry