People v. Call

• Citation: 162 A.D.3d 1063,79 N.Y.S.3d 283
• Decision Date: 27 June 2018
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 39/15,2016–00703
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. George CALL, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

162 A.D.3d 1063
79 N.Y.S.3d 283

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
George CALL, appellant.

2016–00703
Ind. No. 39/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—February 22, 2018
June 27, 2018

Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Stephen Greller, J.), rendered December 14, 2015, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, 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 officers.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

79 N.Y.S.3d 284

The defendant's argument that statements he made before and after the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) should have been suppressed as part of a "single continuous chain of events" in which he was subjected to custodial interrogation ( People v. Paulman, 5 N.Y.3d 122, 130, 800 N.Y.S.2d 96, 833 N.E.2d 239 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243 ), is without merit. Even if the defendant was subjected to a period of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent prior to the administration of Miranda warnings (see People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322–323, 482 N.Y.S.2d 237, 472 N.E.2d 13 ), he made no inculpatory statement, or any statement relating to his conduct in connection with the crime under investigation, until after such warnings had been properly given and his Miranda rights were effectively waived (see People v. White, 40 A.D.3d 662, 662, 836 N.Y.S.2d 204, affd 10 N.Y.3d 286, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534, 886 N.E.2d 156 ; People v. Prater, 258 A.D.2d 600, 601, 685 N.Y.S.2d 743 ). "In the absence of any such pre- Miranda statement, there was no need to determine whether the pre- and post- Miranda sessions were part of a ‘single continuous chain of events’ " ( People v. White, 40 A.D.3d at 663, 836 N.Y.S.2d 204, quoting People v. Paulman, 5 N.Y.3d at 130, 800 N.Y.S.2d 96, 833 N.E.2d 239 ; see People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d at 115, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243 ). Nor was there evidence that the length or conditions of the...