People v. Aponte, 3061
Decision Date | 09 July 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3061,3061 |
Citation | 418 N.Y.S.2d 651,69 A.D.2d 204 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rafael APONTE and Richard Valentine, Appellants. (Ind./76) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry Z. Berger, Brooklyn, for appellant Valentine.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (William Gurin, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before RABIN, J. P., and GULOTTA, SHAPIRO and MANGANO, JJ.
We hold that defendant Aponte's conviction of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a jury trial, should be reversed and the indictment as against him dismissed because his statement given to the police some three hours after he requested counsel, and his ensuing statement to an Assistant District Attorney, should have been suppressed. Absent such statements there was insufficient evidence presented at the trial to establish his commission of the alleged crimes.
We further hold that codefendant Valentine's conviction of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree should be reversed on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the indictment against him dismissed.
On August 26, 1976, at about 9:50 P.M., William Stewart was shot to death on Cleveland Street near its intersection with Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. One month later, on September 25, 1976, Aponte was arrested at 7:15 P.M. and taken to the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn. There, at Some three hours later Aponte asked to speak to the detective who had arrested him, and told him he was ready to make a statement. Up to that time the police made no attempt to obtain a lawyer for Aponte nor (apparently) had they asked him if he had a lawyer whom he would want to call. He was again advised of his Miranda rights and this time he made a statement about the incident. He then asked that his cousin, defendant Richard Valentine, who had been with him at the scene of the incident and who had voluntarily surrendered to the police at 11:00 P.M. (September 25), be brought to him. The police produced Valentine who was then informed by Aponte that he had made a statement to the police and that Valentine should do the same. 1 Valentine then did so without being told what Aponte had said.
about 8:00 P.M., he was advised of his Miranda rights and he refused to make a statement. Between 8:00 and 8:30 P.M. he was advised by the police officer that "he was going to be viewed (through a see-through mirror) by persons * * * who knew him before as being at the area" (i. e., the scene of the shooting). Sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 P.M. he was told that he had been identified by those persons as being at the scene. At 10:00 P.M. he was transferred to the 69th Precinct where, at about 10:15 P.M., he again received the Miranda warnings and again declined to make a statement. At about 10:30 P.M. an Assistant District Attorney arrived at the 69th Precinct and advised Aponte of his Miranda rights before attempting to question him. Aponte said that he didn't want to speak to him and that he "would like to have a lawyer first." Thereupon, the Assistant District Attorney terminated the interview and left the precinct. He gave no instructions to the police with respect to obtaining an attorney for Aponte.
The Assistant District Attorney was called to the precinct and both defendants made statements to him, similar to those they had given to the police, after being advised by the Assistant District Attorney of their Miranda rights, and waiving them. Redacted transcripts of the statements given to the Assistant District Attorney were admitted into evidence both at the Huntley hearing and at the trial.
didn't want to go to the car because I was afraid they might try to rob the rest of my money and my (Human Resources Special Administration) shield * * * Then they told us to keep going. They kept on following us. We turned the corner and we went down the block * * * We walked around a little while and finally we came back around the block and they were gone.
In response to questioning, he stated that at the time the engine of his automobile was still running and that it was in neutral. He was asked whether there was anything stopping him from driving away at that time and he answered "No." He guessed that he could have driven away but stated:
He stated that the gun was a .22 Magnum; that he had had it for two months and had paid $150 for it; and that he did not have a permit for it. In response to the question as to where he had obtained it, he answered, "I would rather not say."
After defendants left the scene, he threw the gun away into "the Mill Basin by the creek" behind the "pink houses." He had never used the gun before. He stated,
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. State, 1123
...49 N.Y.2d 203, 400 N.E.2d 360, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1980); People v. Gordon, 77 A.D.2d 659, 430 N.Y.S.2d 661 (1980); People v. Aponte, 69 A.D.2d 204, 418 N.Y.S.2d 651 (1979). Appellant cites two cases that occurred after Edwards. The first, People v. Cerezo, 635 P.2d 197 (Colo., 1981), gives a......
-
People v. Goetz
...statements in Concord, New Hampshire. See People v. Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95, 101, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231; People v. Aponte, 69 A.D.2d 204, 219-220, 418 N.Y.S.2d 651. In addition, Mr. Allen is physically available. He was produced from State prison on the District Attorney's applic......
-
People ex rel. Cleveland v. New York State Div. of Parole
...with the parole revocation hearing. Cf. People v. Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 377, 408 N.Y.S.2d 429, 380 N.E.2d 257; People v. Aponte, 69 App.Div.2d 204, 216-217, 418 N.Y.S.2d 651. See also People v. Parker, 82 A.D.2d 661, 667, 442 N.Y.S.2d 803. While the non-waiver rule expressed by our courts h......
-
People v. Gordon
...p. 209, 424 N.Y.S.2d 421, 400 N.E.2d 360; see, also, People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894; People v. Aponte, 69 A.D.2d 204, 426 N.Y.S.2d 891). Absent substantial reliance on an "old" rule, the effect of the "new" rule on the administration of justice cannot be g......