People v. Cruz
| Decision Date | 02 October 1978 |
| Citation | 408 N.Y.S.2d 964,65 A.D.2d 558 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Mario Andreas CRUZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. G. Farruggio, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Sharen Litwin, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARTUSCELLO, J. P., and TITONE, RABIN and HAWKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 18, 1976, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant was arrested for causing the death of Samuel Hernandez. At the outset of the trial a Huntley hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179) was held to determine the admissibility of statements defendant made to Detective Crosby. Defendant contends that at the conclusion of the hearing the court failed to state its findings of fact and failed to indicate which of the statements made to Detective Crosby were admissible. We do not consider any error that occurred to warrant reversal. While the court could have stated its findings of fact and conclusions of law more clearly (see CPL 710.60, subds. 4, 6), its failure to do so is not fatal; this court can make the necessary findings of fact where a fair and full hearing on the motion to suppress provides an adequate record (cf. People v. Massiah, 47 A.D.2d 931, 367 N.Y.S.2d 73; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890).
Examining the testimony of the prosecution's witness and that of the defendant, we find that the People have proven beyond a doubt that defendant's initial statement to Detective Crosby on the day of his arrest was voluntarily made after the requisite warnings were given to the defendant. The statement defendant made later that day to Detective Crosby was also voluntarily made and, in any event, did not result from a police interrogation.
Defendant's contention that he was entitled to a mistrial lacks merit since the testimony he complains of did not prejudice his right to a fair trial.
We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. James
...we could make appropriate factual findings on appeal (e.g., People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964; People v. Thomas, 58 A.D.2d 899, 397 N.Y.S.2d 8). The difficulty here is that People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 417, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441, ......
-
People v. Joy
...the record is sufficient for us to determine this issue (see, e.g., People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964). We find that an in-court identification of defendant by the complainant is supported by her independent recollection and is......
-
People v. Neely
...Jones, 204 A.D.2d 162, 614 N.Y.S.2d 110; People v. Lewis, 172 A.D.2d 1020, 569 N.Y.S.2d 538), and Huntley hearings (see, People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964; People v. Acosta, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890; People v. Brown, 33 ......
-
People v. Nelson
...supra). Where the defendant has received a full and fair hearing on the issue, we may make the necessary findings (see People v. Cruz, 65 A.D.2d 558, 408 N.Y.S.2d 964; People v. Massiah, 47 A.D.2d 931, 367 N.Y.S.2d 931), particularly where, as here, the defendant concedes that there is a su......