People v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 21 March 1988 |
| Citation | 138 A.D.2d 622,526 N.Y.S.2d 208 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Guillermo GONZALEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Allen S. Stim, Plainview, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese and John F. McGlynn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered August 14, 1985, convicting him of sodomy 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 statements made by him to the police.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant first contends that the court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements given by him to the police. He maintains that the hearing court's findings were erroneous as a matter of law and that his statements should have been suppressed because he was not advised of his Miranda rights and because he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights. We disagree.
It is well settled that great weight must be accorded to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses ( People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380) and its determination should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record ( People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561, 479 N.Y.S.2d 267; People v. Boyce, 89 A.D.2d 623, 624, 452 N.Y.S.2d 676; see also, People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726, 469 N.Y.S.2d 137). Here, the suppression court specifically rejected the defendant's claim that he had not been advised of his Miranda rights and also rejected his claim that he was unaware of what he was signing when he acknowledg on the notification of rights card that he understood and waived his rights. The court further rejected his claim that he did not know what he was signing when he signed a typewritten copy of his statement. There is no basis in the record for reversing these findings.
The defendant's further contention that his statements should have been suppressed because they were the product of an illegal arrest is also without merit. As the hearing court correctly noted, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon the statement given to Detective Daniel Walsh by the 11-year-old complainant (see, CPL 140.10). Moreover, the defendant's claim the complainant's reliability had to be established before a warrantless arrest could be made is unfounded. Unlike a paid or anonymous informant, an eyewitness-victim of a crime can provide probable cause for the arrest of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...is an "eyewitness-victim," since it is obvious that the informant's accusation is based on personal knowledge. (See, People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622, 526 N.Y.S.2d 208; People v. Walker, 129 A.D.2d 751, 514 N.Y.S.2d 512.) Here, however, the wife had been robbed. Thus, unlike the situation......
-
People v. Jackson
...and identifies the accused as the perpetrator” ( People v. Read, 74 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 904 N.Y.S.2d 147;see People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622, 623, 526 N.Y.S.2d 208). The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish the reliability and basis of the complainant's statements to......
-
Roberts v. City of N.Y.
...made under "materially impeaching circumstances" ( id. [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]; see People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622, 623, 526 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d Dept. 1988], lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1027, 530 N.Y.S.2d 562, 526 N.E.2d 54 [1988] ) in four respects.First, plaintiff submitt......
-
Okunubi v. City of N.Y.
...previously established or her information corroborated” ( People v. Read, 74 A.D.3d at 1246, 904 N.Y.S.2d 147;see People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622, 623, 526 N.Y.S.2d 208;People v. Crespo, 70 A.D.2d 661, 417 N.Y.S.2d 19). Here, the plaintiff, through his counsel, admitted that the eyewitne......