People v. Chavis
| Decision Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Citation | 537 N.Y.S.2d 875,147 A.D.2d 582 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stonnie CHAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Susan H. Salomon, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Leonard Joblove and Donald Nawi, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, SPATT and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered March 7, 1988, convicting him of robbery 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 to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the hearing court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped confession. The defendant contends that the People, by failing to call the arresting detective who, according to the defendant's testimony at the hearing, threatened and coerced him into giving his videotaped statement, did not establish that his confession was voluntary.
While it is the People's burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Valerius, 31 N.Y.2d 51, 334 N.Y.S.2d 871, 286 N.E.2d 254), "[t]his does not mean * * * that the People are mandated to produce all police officers who had contact with the defendant from arrest to the time the challenged statements were elicited" (People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 489 N.E.2d 758; see, People v. Anderson, 69 N.Y.2d 651, 511 N.Y.S.2d 592, 503 N.E.2d 1023; People v. Leftwich, 134 A.D.2d 371, 520 N.Y.S.2d 849, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 957, 525 N.Y.S.2d 840, 520 N.E.2d 559). Thus, where the prosecution in the first instance establishes the legality of police conduct and the defendant's waiver of his rights, the burden of persuasion on a motion to suppress rests with the defendant (People v. Love, 85 A.D.2d 799, 445 N.Y.S.2d 607, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 998, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486; see, People v. Wilson, 143 A.D.2d 786, 533 N.Y.S.2d 313; People v. Leftwich, supra).
We find that the defendant's allegations were refuted by the videotape itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Lord
...See N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 60.45; People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 489 N.E.2d 758 (1985); People v. Chavis, 147 A.D.2d 582, 537 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2d Dep't 1989); People v. Wilson, 143 A.D.2d 786, 533 N.Y.S.2d 313 (2d Dep't The Court finds that counsel did not err in failin......
-
People v. King
... ... Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 999, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486; People v. Billington, 163 A.D.2d 911, 559 N.Y.S.2d 850, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 891, 561 N.Y.S.2d 553, 562 N.E.2d 878; People v. Chavis, 147 A.D.2d 582, 537 N.Y.S.2d 875, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 662, 543 N.Y.S.2d 405, 541 N.E.2d 434) ... The People established that, before questioning defendant about the deaths of her children, a police investigator read the Miranda rights slowly to defendant, pausing after each right ... ...
-
People v. Dunlap
...who elicited the statement (People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 489 N.E.2d 758; see also, People v. Chavis, 147 A.D.2d 582, 537 N.Y.S.2d 875, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 662, 543 N.Y.S.2d 405, 541 N.E.2d 434). Sergeant Hurst, whose testimony was credited by the hearing cou......
-
People v. Williams
...of rights, the burden of persuasion at the suppression hearing shifts to the defendant ( People v. Love, supra at 999; People v. Chavis, 147 A.D.2d 582 [2d Dept.1989] ). Here, the defendant, who did not proffer any testimony or evidence at the hearing, failed to establish that his waiver of......