People v. Engelhardt

• Decision Date: 12 April 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Melissa S. ENGELHARDT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02726
94 A.D.3d 1238
941 N.Y.S.2d 808

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Melissa S. ENGELHARDT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

April 12, 2012.

[941 N.Y.S.2d 808]

Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SPAIN, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

[941 N.Y.S.2d 809]

KAVANAGH, J.

[94 A.D.3d 1238] Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of [94 A.D.3d 1239] Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered December 6, 2010, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In November 2009, police responded to defendant's residence after it was reported that her 21–month–old stepson was found dead in his playpen. Defendant initially told police that when the infant arrived at her home on the day prior to his death, he was tired and had no appetite, but nothing unusual had occurred and it appeared to her that his death was the result of natural causes. Later, it was determined that the child's death was, in fact, caused by methanol poisoning and that traces of methanol were found on his drinking cup. During the ensuing investigation, police, with defendant's consent, took a computer from her home, conducted a forensic examination on its hard drive and determined that an Internet search on poisoning had been performed on the computer shortly before the child's death. When the police again contacted defendant, she refused to submit to any additional questioning about the child's death and stated that her mother had told her that she was represented by Legal Aid.

The next day, defendant telephoned the detective in charge of the investigation, stated that she was, in fact, not represented by counsel and was willing to go to police headquarters to answer additional questions concerning her stepson's death. At police headquarters, defendant was advised of her Miranda rights, waived them and, during the interview that followed, ultimately admitted to police that she had laced her stepson's apple juice with windshield washer fluid shortly before he drank it on the night prior to his death. Based on this admission and other evidence developed by the police during their investigation, defendant was arrested and was later charged by indictment with murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree.

After defendant's motion to suppress was denied, County Court, in a nonjury trial, acquitted her of murder, but found her guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. She now appeals, arguing that it was error not to suppress the statements she made to the police and that her sentence was harsh and excessive.

Defendant initially argues that County Court erred in denying her motion to suppress because, when she made her statement regarding the windshield washer fluid, she was in police custody and had exercised her right to counsel. The “right to counsel indelibly attaches when an uncharged individual ..., [94 A.D.3d 1240] while in custody, has requested a lawyer in that matter” ( People v. Dashnaw, 85 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 925...