People v. Duda
| Decision Date | 23 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | KA 06-00117. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 09283,845 N.Y.S.2d 671,45 A.D.3d 1464 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL DUDA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered December 7, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sexual act in the first degree, rape in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of one count each of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [4]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), and three counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [4]). Following a trial that ended in a deadlocked jury, a mistrial was declared and a second trial was held on all charges, resulting in the judgment on appeal. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial on the ground that the jury was deadlocked. The jury had deliberated for a total of four hours, and the court twice required the jury to engage in further deliberations after being informed of the deadlock (see CPL 310.60 [1] [a]; Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 251-252 [1984]; see also People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]). The court was not required to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial inasmuch as it asked the jury foreperson in the presence of the entire jury whether a unanimous verdict could be reached in a reasonable amount of time and received a negative response without dissent from the other jurors (see Plummer, 63 NY2d at 252). Contrary to defendant's further contention, "the second trial did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy inasmuch as the evidence at the first trial was legally sufficient to support a conviction" (People v Dennard, 39 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 842 [2007]; cf. People v Tingue, 91 AD2d 166, 167-168 [1983]).
We further conclude that the People's failure to provide defendant with a misplaced handwritten note given to the police by the victim does not require reversal. Rather, we conclude that the court appropriately sanctioned the People for failing to provide defendant with the note by informing the jury that an adverse inference may be drawn with respect to the contents of the note (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]). In any event, the possibility of prejudice to defendant based on the People's failure to provide him with a copy of the note was "remote" because defendant was provided with a sworn written statement by the victim, and the victim testified that the contents of the handwritten note were the same as the contents of the sworn statement (id.).
We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the police before he was informed of his Miranda rights. Defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statement, and thus the police were not required to inform him of his Miranda rights at that time (see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588-589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). Indeed, the record establishes that defendant initiated contact with the police, voluntarily accompanied a police officer to the police station, was not handcuffed, and was questioned in an investigatory rather than an accusatory manner (see People v Murphy, 43 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2007]; People v Regan, 21 AD3d 1357, 1358 [2005]; People v Cunningham, 13 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 [2005], 5 NY3d 761 [2005]). A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conley
...against double jeopardy inasmuch as the evidence at the first trial was legally sufficient to support a conviction’ " ( People v. Duda , 45 A.D.3d 1464, 1465, 845 N.Y.S.2d 671 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261 [2008] ; People v. Casey , 37 A.D.3d 1......
-
People v. Box
...1084, 862 N.Y.S.2d 236 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 795, 866 N.Y.S.2d 621, 896 N.E.2d 107 [2008] ; People v. Duda, 45 A.D.3d 1464, 1466, 845 N.Y.S.2d 671 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261 [2008] ). We conclude that a reasonable person, inn......
-
People v. Brown
...see People v. Towsley, 53 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 862 N.Y.S.2d 236, lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 795, 866 N.Y.S.2d 621, 896 N.E.2d 107; People v. Duda, 45 A.D.3d 1464, 1466, 845 N.Y.S.2d 671, lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261). Consequently, we conclude that defendant was not in ......
-
People v. Wofford
...101 A.D.3d 1715, 1717, 957 N.Y.S.2d 535,lv. denied [982 N.Y.S.2d 669]21 N.Y.3d 946, 968 N.Y.S.2d 9, 990 N.E.2d 143;People v. Duda, 45 A.D.3d 1464, 1466, 845 N.Y.S.2d 671,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261;see generally People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427, 509 N.Y.......