People v. Bell

• Decision Date: 29 June 1987
• Citation: 131 A.D.2d 859,517 N.Y.S.2d 219
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Donna BELL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 219

517 N.Y.S.2d 219

131 A.D.2d 859

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Donna BELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 29, 1987.

Charles M. Newell, Quoque, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Marc Resnick, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered January 31, 1985, convicting her of murder in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. 127 Misc.2d 43, 485 N.Y.S.2d 416. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements which she made to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to Queens County Indictment Number 1333/83, the defendant Donna Bell, her boyfriend Stephen Gagne, and his brother Louis Gagne were charged with acting in concert in committing two counts of murder in the second degree (intentional and felony murder), and burglary in the first degree. The charges emanate from the death by strangulation of Palmina Bell, the defendant's mother. The homicide was committed during the course of the burglary of the victim's apartment. The apparent motive for the crime was to obtain the victim's bank cards (including an automatic teller machine card), in order to provide the perpetrators access to her accounts which, at that time, contained over $50,000.

Following a hearing on the defendants' motions to suppress certain evidence, the defendants were tried separately. While Louis Gagne was acquitted of all charges, Stephen Gagne was convicted on all counts. The latter judgment was subsequently affirmed by this court (see, People v. Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808, 514 N.Y.S.2d 799).

The defendant challenges the hearing court's ruling denying that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to the police, contending that the statements were involuntary because at the time of the police interrogation, she was weak, tired, "spaced out" on medication and generally in an emotionally distraught condition. The defendant made essentially three statements at the precinct, the last of which was videotaped. According to the hearing testimony of the interrogating detective and the Assistant District Attorney, the defendant was advised of her Miranda warnings prior to each interview and indicated each time that she understood her rights and was willing to speak without an attorney. During her second statement, the defendant admitted that she had overheard Stephen and Louis Gagne discuss burglarizing her mother's apartment. She nevertheless drove with them to the apartment and remained in the automobile while the Gagne brothers entered the premises. At that time, she stated that when the trio drove away from the scene, Stephen told her that he had killed her mother and threatened to kill her also if she said anything to the police. The interrogating detective recorded this statement in his notebook and the defendant initialled each paper and signed it at the end. She subsequently added further details regarding the clothing worn by the codefendants.

In the course of her videotaped interview with Assistant District Attorney Mark Furman, the defendant provided a detailed narrative and answered all questions coherently and with specificity. Other than an oblique reference at the end of her statement to having been given a valium at the hospital, the defendant gave no indication that she was under the influence of any type of drug. Stated succinctly, the record belies any allegation that the defendant's will was so overborne by her claimed physical and emotional impairment as to render her statements involuntary (see, People v. Adams, 26 N.Y.2d 129, 137, 309 N.Y.S.2d 145, 257 N.E.2d 610, cert. denied 399 U.S. 931, 90 S.Ct. 2262, 26 L.Ed.2d 800).

The defendant's contention that she had a license or privilege to be in her mother's apartment at the time of the crime, and that therefore the People failed to sustain their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory element of unlawful entry (see, Penal Law §§ 140.30, 140.00) is without merit. The defendant's trial testimony established that she refused her mother...