People v. Figueroa-Norse

• Decision Date: 08 August 2014
• Citation: 991 N.Y.S.2d 201,120 A.D.3d 913,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05714
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Zoraida Y. FIGUEROA–NORSE, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 913

991 N.Y.S.2d 201

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05714

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Zoraida Y. FIGUEROA–NORSE, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Aug. 8, 2014.

D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown, for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[8] ) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ) based on life-threatening injuries she caused to her then eight-year-old foster child. The victim sustained a head injury that rendered her unconscious and required surgery to relieve pressure on her brain. She was in a coma for approximately one month and, at the time of trial, suffered paralysis on the left side of her body as a result of the injury. In addition, the victim sustained an injury to her abdomen that resulted in perforation of her digestive system and also required surgery. Due to the nature of her head injury, the victim could not recall how she was injured. Defendant was arrested after her brother informed the police that she had assaulted the child at his home.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress statements she made to the deputy sheriff who questioned her at the hospital where the victim was taken. According to defendant, her statements were involuntary because they were not preceded by Miranda warnings. We reject that contention. “In determining whether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, ‘[t]he test is not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant's position’ ” (People v. Kelley, 91 A.D.3d 1318, 1318, 937 N.Y.S.2d 514, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 963, 950 N.Y.S.2d 115, 973 N.E.2d 213, quoting People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172, cert. denied400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89). Here, defendant was not restrained in any way, nor was she told that she had to answer the deputy sheriff's questions. Although defendant was with the deputy sheriff at the hospital for approximately 10 hours, the questioning was not continuous, and defendant was given multiple breaks to use the bathroom and obtain beverages. Defendant declined an offer of food and had contact by cell phone with her brother and mother. At one point, defendant left the hospital on her own to retrieve items from her vehicle, and then returned to the hospital for further questioning. Moreover, the record of the Huntley hearing establishes that the questioning was investigatory rather than accusatory in nature ( see People v. Smielecki, 77 A.D.3d 1420, 1421, 908 N.Y.S.2d 485, lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326; People v. Murphy, 43 A.D.3d 1276, 1277, 842 N.Y.S.2d 839, lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 1008, 850 N.Y.S.2d 396, 880 N.E.2d 882). Finally, defendant did not make any admissions and was allowed to go home after the interview was completed. Under the circumstances, we conclude that “a reasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required” during the interview (People v. Lunderman, 19 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 796 N.Y.S.2d 481, lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 830, 804 N.Y.S.2d 44, 837 N.E.2d 743; see People v. Jones, 110 A.D.3d 1484, 1485, 973 N.Y.S.2d 897, lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1157, 984 N.Y.S.2d 641, 7 N.E.3d 1129; People v. Zuke, 87 A.D.3d 1290, 1291, 929 N.Y.S.2d 910, lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 887, 939 N.Y.S.2d 757, 963 N.E.2d 134).

We likewise reject defendant's contention that the statements were involuntary within the meaning of CPL 60.45(2) because her will was overborne by the length of the questioning and promises made to her by the deputy sheriff. Defendant was not coerced by the use or threatened use of physical force, and, even assuming, arguendo, that the deputy sheriff promised defendant that she could talk to the victim's surgeon if she cooperated with the police, as defendant testified at the Huntley hearing, we conclude that such promise did not create “a substantial risk that the defendant might falsely incriminate [herself]” (CPL 60.45[2][b][i] ). Indeed, as noted, defendant did not incriminate herself during the interview, and she was not arrested until five days later.

Defendant contends that she was deprived of her right to a proper jury because a prospective juror did not serve on the jury despite not having been struck or challenged. Because defendant did not object to the failure of that prospective juror to be seated on the jury, however, she failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see People v. Hayes, 71 A.D.3d 1477, 897 N.Y.S.2d 370, lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 751, 906 N.Y.S.2d 823, 933 N.E.2d 222), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). We note in any event that we perceive no prejudice to defendant arising from the failure of the prospective juror to be seated. As the Court of Appeals explained in a different context, “[e]ven if a juror is wrongly but not arbitrarily excused, the worst the court will have done in most cases is to have replacedone impartial juror with another impartial juror” (People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 108 n. 3, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469; see People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 362, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court should have removed a seated juror who the court noticed had “nodded off” during the preliminary instructions and opening statements ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). The court learned from the juror during a discussion at the bench that she was tired due to her diabetes medication, and the court decided to adjourn the trial until the next morning to allow the juror to get a good night's sleep. Although present for the discussion at the bench with the juror, defense counsel did not object to the court's course of action or request that the juror be removed as “grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35 [1] ). We note that there is no indication in the record that the juror missed any of the evidence presented at trial, and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ).

We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that “ ‘there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime[s] proved beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant's brother testified that he observed defendant strike the victim in the face between five and seven times on the day in question. According to defendant's brother,...