People v. Alfonso
| Decision Date | 28 September 2016 |
| Citation | 142 A.D.3d 1180,38 N.Y.S.3d 566,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06224 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Justin ALFONSO, also known as “King Kasanova,” appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
142 A.D.3d 1180
38 N.Y.S.3d 566
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06224
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Justin ALFONSO, also known as “King Kasanova,” appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 28, 2016.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered July 15, 2013, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree, attempted gang assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of several crimes, including conspiracy in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), in connection with a shooting of two individuals in an apartment building in the City of Poughkeepsie on March 6, 2012.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the hearing court should have suppressed his statements to the police because the conduct of the interrogating detective vitiated the effectiveness of the Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; see People v. Dunbar, 24 N.Y.3d 304, 998 N.Y.S.2d 679, 23 N.E.3d 946 ). At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of the detective who interviewed the defendant, and the video recordings of those interviews were admitted into evidence. One of the video recordings reveals that, prior to the administration of Miranda rights, the detective told the defendant,
among other things, that the defendant had “an opportunity now to tell [his] side of the story, if [he] want[ed] to.” The detective indicated that in his “younger days,” he would have bounced the defendant off “ about ... five walls.” The detective reiterated that he was going to give the defendant an opportunity to give his side of the story, and promised him that he “potentially [could] help [himself].”
When the defendant ultimately began to give a statement, the detective interrupted him and, referring to the Miranda warnings form, indicated that it was a “bullshit form that [he] had to get past.” The detective testified at the hearing that he characterized the form this way to “downplay” it and “minimize [its] importance.” The video recording shows that the detective began to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights, informing him that he had
the right to remain silent and that anything he said could and would be used against him in a court of law. However, the detective almost immediately qualified this advisement by stating: “obviously, anything that you say can also help you and benefit you in certain ways, you know what I mean,” and then added, “potentially.”
Under the circumstances, the detective's statements undermined the Miranda warnings and rendered them ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights (see People v. Rutledge, 25 N.Y.3d 1082, 12 N.Y.S.3d 23, 34 N.E.3d 51, revg. 116 A.D.3d 645, 984 N.Y.S.2d 61 ; People v. Dunbar, 24 N.Y.3d at 315–316, 998 N.Y.S.2d 679, 23 N.E.3d 946 ; People v. Rivera, 128 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 8 N.Y.S.3d 662 ). Accordingly, the hearing court should have granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police. However, reversal is not required inasmuch as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guerra
...due to detective's statement that it would be beneficial for defendant to provide an explanation for the crime]; People v Alfonso, 142 A.D.3d 1180 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 946 [2017] [detective's statements that speaking to police could help defendant rendered Miranda warnings in......
-
People v. Muller
...132 A.D.3d 1361, 1362, 17 N.Y.S.3d 539 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1110, 26 N.Y.S.3d 768, 47 N.E.3d 98 [2016] ; cf. People v. Alfonso, 142 A.D.3d 1180, 1181, 38 N.Y.S.3d 566 [2016], lvs. denied 29 N.Y.3d 946, 949, 54 N.Y.S.3d 377, 76 N.E.3d 1080 [2017] ). A video recording of the interview......
-
Alfonso v. Lamanna
... ... affirmed the judgment on September 28, 2016, the court ... reversed the County Court's decision from the ... Huntley-Wade hearing, holding that the County Court ... should have suppressed Petitioner's statements to the ... police. People v. Alfonso , 38 N.Y.S.3d 566, 568-69 ... (App. Div. 2016). The Appellate Division recounted the ... interview, highlighting Detective Perrotta's admission ... that he was trying to “downplay” the ... Miranda form and “minimize [its] ... importance.” Id ... at ... ...
-
People v. Hillard
...that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction, that conviction should not be reversed (see People v. Alfonso, 142 A.D.3d 1180, 38 N.Y.S.3d 566 ). We reach a different conclusion with respect to the conviction of unlawful possession of marijuana, as there is a reasonabl......