People v. Carrion
| Decision Date | 02 November 2000 |
| Citation | 715 N.Y.S.2d 257,277 A.D.2d 480 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>OSCAR CARRION, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
These convictions arise out of the robberies of Singleton's Old Pit Stop and the Family Dollar Store in the City of Amsterdam, Montgomery County, on December 2, 1996 and December 7, 1996, respectively. Defendant appeals, contending that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to police officers on the date of the Family Dollar robbery because his detention was not justified and he effectively refused to speak with police officers during his detention.
At the suppression hearing, John Di Caprio, a police officer with the Amsterdam Police Department, testified that while investigating the radio report of an armed robbery, he came across defendant approximately one block from the Family Dollar. At the time, the temperature was approximately 30 degrees and it was snowing, with an accumulation of approximately one inch on the ground. Di Caprio noted that defendant was not wearing a coat, hat or gloves, but merely a dry T-shirt and a pair of pants. Di Caprio approached defendant, requested identification, and asked defendant to accompany him to the police station. Di Caprio further testified that defendant voluntarily agreed to come to the station, he was given his Miranda warnings, he indicated that he understood his rights and he told his questioners that he could help get a lot of drug dealers off the streets. Later, Miranda warnings were again given after which defendant refused to sign the Miranda waiver form but purportedly agreed to speak to an investigator. When asked if he did the Family Dollar robbery on his own, defendant nodded his head. When asked if he planned the Singleton's robbery on his own, he again nodded his head.
Where a defendant agrees to talk to the police, his refusal to sign a Miranda waiver form is not an implicit invocation of his or her Miranda rights (see, People v Setless, 213 AD2d 900, 900-901, lv denied 86 NY2d 740) and does not preclude a finding that Miranda rights have been waived (see, People v Danaher, 115 AD2d 905). Rather, a defendant's voluntary actions in speaking to the police may very well constitute an affirmative waiver of his or her Miranda rights (see, People v Setless, supra, at 901). Based on defendant's agreement to speak to the police officers, and his willingness to answer their questions, defendant waived his rights here and his oral statements were admissible.
Defendant also contends that the People improperly impeached their own witness, William Pereicich, by using a prior written statement in the course of his testimony about what defendant had stated to him. Where a party's witness falls short of disproving the party's position, a prior statement of the witness may be used to refresh his or her recollection, but only if the contents of the statement are not disclosed to the jury (see, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jeremiah
...constitutes "an implicit invocation of his ... Miranda rights" nor precludes a finding that he waived them (People v. Carrion, 277 A.D.2d 480, 480, 715 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 757, 725 N.Y.S.2d 283, 748 N.E.2d 1079 [2001] ; see People v. Setless, 213 A.D.2d 900, 900–901, 6......
-
People v. Presha
...she was attempting to place the contents of a certain document in evidence that otherwise was inadmissible ( see People v. Carrion, 277 A.D.2d 480, 481, 715 N.Y.S.2d 257, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 757, 725 N.Y.S.2d 283, 748 N.E.2d 1079; People v. Kellogg, 210 A.D.2d 912, 913–914, 621 N.Y.S.2d 41......
-
People v. Ortiz
...288 A.D.2d 883, 884, 732 N.Y.S.2d 765 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 729, 740 N.Y.S.2d 702, 767 N.E.2d 159 [2002] ; People v. Carrion, 277 A.D.2d 480, 481, 715 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 757, 725 N.Y.S.2d 283, 748 N.E.2d 1079 [2001] ).2 Defendant's remaining argument is unprese......
-
People v. Thomas
...v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 369 N.E.2d 759 ; People v. Mejia, 292 A.D.2d 189, 739 N.Y.S.2d 42 ; People v. Carrion, 277 A.D.2d 480, 481, 715 N.Y.S.2d 257 ). The defendant's contentions regarding allegedly improper comments in the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved f......