People v. Connor

• Decision Date: 16 January 1990
• Citation: 157 A.D.2d 739,550 N.Y.S.2d 34
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ronald CONNOR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 34

550 N.Y.S.2d 34

157 A.D.2d 739

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Ronald CONNOR, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Barry Apfelbaum, New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Robin A. Forshaw, of counsel, Henry G. Burnett, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, EIBER and BALLETTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Tomei, J.), rendered September 14, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony at trial established that the defendant and an accomplice, Dolores Solomon, planned to rob a woman named Doris Garner in order to purchase drugs.According to Solomon, who was called as a witness by the People, the defendant fled the crime-scene when Larry Johnson, a neighbor of the victim, intervened.The defendant, however, returned to the scene where he was immediately identified by the victim, Johnson, and Solomon.At trial, the defendant took the stand and explained that he was merely a bystander who had refused Solomon's solicitations earlier that evening.

On cross-examination the defendant denied making a statement to Parole Officer Alston, to the effect that he had participated in the robbery.When the People sought to call the parole officer as a rebuttal witness, the defendant requested and was granted a Huntley hearing to determine whether the statement made by him while at the Brooklyn House of Detention, was voluntarily made.There was testimony that it was not the policy of the Parole Division to recite Miranda warnings.The Supreme Court, after the hearing, found that the defendant was not under any compulsion to answer Alston's questions, that he was at all times free to leave the room, and that there was no threat of a potential sanction against him for refusal to answer Alston's questions.Under the circumstances, the court found that the statement was voluntarily made.We perceive no basis to overturn this determination.Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court to determine and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous (People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726, 469 N.Y.S.2d 137;People v. Vail, 90 A.D.2d 917, 918, 457 N.Y.S.2d 933).

At trial, the defendant...