People v. Batista
| Decision Date | 28 November 2000 |
| Citation | 717 N.Y.S.2d 113,277 A.D.2d 141 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSE BATISTA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence established every element of each of the crimes of which defendant was convicted.
The court properly denied defendant's mistrial motion made on the ground that the People introduced defendant's statement to an employee of the Administration for Children's Services without having provided notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (a). While CPL 710.30 (1) (a) requires notice of a statement to a "public servant," the unmistakable legislative intent is to provide notice of statements to law enforcement personnel in order to facilitate the making of suppression motions (see, Matter of Luis M., 83 NY2d 226; People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 448-449). In Mirenda, the defendant claimed that he did not receive notice of a statement made to a cellmate. The Court of Appeals was called upon to analyze section 813-f of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the predecessor to the current CPL 710.30. The Court stated: (Supra, at 448.) The Court reasoned that the purpose of the statute was to give the defendant an adequate time to prepare his case for questioning the voluntariness of the statement, and that only where voluntariness of the statement is challenged is there a need for a hearing (People v Mirenda, supra, at 448-449).
Similarly, we decline to interpret the reference to "public servant[s]" in CPL 710.30 (1) (a) to require notice of the statements made by defendant to an employee of the Administration for Children's Services. The caseworker herein was not acting as an agent of the police in obtaining either the arrest or confession of defendant. Rather, he was acting as an interpreter and investigating a child's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jelinek v. Costello
...of the statements made by [a] defendant to an employee of the Administration for Children's Services." People v. Batista, 277 A.D.2d 141, 142, 717 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.YApp.Div. 2000). Central to the court's reasoning in that case was the fact that the caseworker "was not acting as an agent of t......
-
People v. Phoenix
...24 A.D.3d 1021, 1025, 807 N.Y.S.2d 166 [2005],lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 832, 814 N.Y.S.2d 80, 847 N.E.2d 377 [2006];People v. Batista, 277 A.D.2d 141, 142, 717 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2000],lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001];People v. Quinto, 245 A.D.2d 121, 121, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...merely conducting a child protective investigation and was not acting in cooperation with law enforcement (see People v. Batista, 277 A.D.2d 141, 717 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1st Dept. 2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001] ). Since there was no law enforcement involve......
-
People v. Mathurine
...denied15 N.Y.3d 924, 913 N.Y.S.2d 651, 939 N.E.2d 817 [2010] ), statements made to private individuals (People v. Batista, 277 A.D.2d 141, 717 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1st Dept. 2000]lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001]; People v. Whitmore, 12 A.D.3d 845, 785 N.Y.S.2d 140 [......