People v. Evans

• Decision Date: 25 June 1990
• Citation: 162 A.D.2d 702,557 N.Y.S.2d 120
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alexander EVANS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 120

557 N.Y.S.2d 120

162 A.D.2d 702

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alexander EVANS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

June 25, 1990.

Anthony C. Ginetto, New York City, for appellant.

Alexander Evans, pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Carol Teague Schwartzkopf and Nancy F. Talcott, of counsel), for respondent.

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

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.), rendered May 21, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 certain statements made by him to the police.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's argument, the testimony adduced at the Huntley hearing clearly established that the defendant was fully apprised of his constitutional rights. The exact language set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 need not be utilized by the police as long as the substance of what is said adequately informs the defendant of his constitutional rights (see, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696). We also reject the defendant's contention that the Miranda warnings should have been re-administered by the second detective to interview him. "Where a station house interrogation of a suspect is continuous and without significant interruption, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 does not require the police to repeat the warnings when the defendant has made statements that are sufficiently inculpatory to support his arrest" (see, People v. Wright, 134 A.D.2d 548, 521 N.Y.S.2d 451). Here, it is apparent that the interrogation of the defendant was continuous and without significant interruption.

We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the defendant could be questioned about his 1983 conviction for robbery and assault (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), and the mere fact that these crimes involved conduct similar to that for which the defendant was charged at bar did not preclude them from being the subject of cross-examination (People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d...