People v. Baker

• Citation: 208 A.D.2d 758,617 N.Y.S.2d 798
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Terry M. BAKER, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 17 October 1994
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 798

617 N.Y.S.2d 798

208 A.D.2d 758

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Terry M. BAKER, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 17, 1994.

Elizabeth S. Ostrow, New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, NY (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Victor Barall and Philip Ransom Schatz, of counsel), for respondent.

Before COPERTINO, J.P., and PIZZUTO, ALTMAN and HART, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered January 4, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first 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 statements made by him to the police.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his written statement given at 9:10 P.M was properly admitted into evidence. It is well settled that "where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody remained continuous" (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, 484 N.Y.S.2d 64, cert. denied 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3487, 87 L.Ed.2d 621). Here, the record indicates that the defendant remained in the interview room during his detention, and that approximately eight hours passed from the time he was issued Miranda rights and his 9:10 P.M. statement. Therefore, additional warnings were unnecessary (see, e.g., People v. Stanton, 162 A.D.2d 987, 557 N.Y.S.2d 782; People v. Williams, 137 A.D.2d 568, 524 N.Y.S.2d 462; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 457 N.Y.S.2d 831; People v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462; People v. Manley, 40 A.D.2d 907, 337 N.Y.S.2d 759). Furthermore, based on the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Fischl, 182 A.D.2d 699, 582 N.Y.S.2d 467), including the duration and conditions of detention, the attitude of the police toward the defendant, and the age, physical state and mental state of the defendant (see, People v. McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605, 530 N.Y.S.2d 259; People v. Ross, 134 A.D.2d 298, 520 N.Y.S.2d 625), the defendant's 9:10 P.M. statement was voluntarily given. The defendant had only been detained for approximately eight hours before making his first inculpatory statement. In addition, the defendant was given dinner and permitted to use the toilet facilities. Further, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was subjected to intimidation or coercion by the police....