People v. Flores

• Decision Date: 26 September 2017
• Docket Number: 4511, 3301/11.
• Citation: 62 N.Y.S.3d 47,153 A.D.3d 1186
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro FLORES, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

153 A.D.3d 1186

62 N.Y.S.3d 47

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Pedro FLORES, Defendant–Appellant.

4511, 3301/11.

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

Sept. 26, 2017.

Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sabrina Margret Bierer of counsel), for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, MOSKOWITZ, GESMER, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann M. Donnelly, J. at hearing and plea; Ellen Biben, J. at sentencing), rendered October 26, 2015, convicting defendant, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 17 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, the motion to suppress statements defendant made at a police station granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a statement made at the scene of the incident. Miranda warnings were not required, because there was neither interrogation nor custody. The police officer's inquiry about "what happened" was not interrogation, but was for investigatory purposes and was intended to clarify the situation, where there was a stabbing victim one floor below defendant's apartment, and defendant had a wound on his arm and had blood on his boots (see People v. Valderas, 7 A.D.3d 265, 265, 776 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept.2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 649, 782 N.Y.S.2d 420, 816 N.E.2d 210 [2004] ). Furthermore, a reasonable innocent person in defendant's position would not have thought that he was in custody (see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 [1969], cert. denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89 [1970] ). The police did nothing to restrain defendant, and although at the time of the statement at issue, "[t]he police activity at the apartment was likely to have conveyed the impression that an investigation was in progress, ... there was no indication that the police had decided to arrest anyone" ( People v. Radellant, 105 A.D.3d 556, 557, 963 N.Y.S.2d 215 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1090, 981 N.Y.S.2d 675, 4 N.E.3d 977 [2014] ).

However, we find that the People failed to establish that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before giving oral and written statements to a detective at the precinct. In a videotaped statement to the prosecutor, made several hours after the statements to the detective, defendant said, "I cannot pay for a lawyer, why do I write yes or no." The prosecutor then said, "[D]o you understand if you can't, the Court will give you one?," to which defendant responded, "[S]o I put no." After the prosecutor reread the...