People v. Graham
Decision Date | 14 February 2008 |
Docket Number | 2748.,2747. |
Citation | 48 A.D.3d 265,2008 NY Slip Op 01382,856 N.Y.S.2d 7 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RUFUS GRAHAM, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The court should have granted defendant's suppression motion. After receiving Miranda warnings from one detective, defendant told another detective about eight hours later that he did not want to talk about any of the burglaries at issue. At this point, the police should have ceased interrogation (see People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, 322 [1984], cert denied 472 US 1007 [1985]; People v Brown, 266 AD2d 838 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 860 [1999]). Instead, the second detective immediately, and without new warnings, told defendant that there was video and fingerprint evidence linking him to the crimes; this led defendant to say, "charge me with everything, I did everything." The police comment clearly constituted interrogation and was improper (see People v Kollar, 305 AD2d 295, 298 [2003], appeal dismissed 1 NY3d 591 [2004]). Although defendant later asked to speak to the detective and made the confessions that were admitted at trial, the detective never readministered Miranda warnings.
However, with the exception of the counts relating to the burglary at 61 East 77th Street, the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). Each of the other crimes was established by fingerprints or other compelling evidence, and there is no reasonable possibility that the confession contributed to the verdict.
Defendant is also entitled to a new trial, as to these same counts, on the ground set forth in his CPL 440 motion. We conclude that, at the evidentiary hearing conducted on his motion defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence (see CPL 440.30 [6]) that the People failed to turn over one of defendant's statements (relating to an incident at 145 West 45th Street) until after the verdict; we thus substitute our own factual finding for that of the motion court. This delay violated the People's disclosure obligation under CPL 240.20 (1) (a). Although this statement was not introduced at trial, defendant was prejudiced because the statement contained material that he could have used for impeachment purposes in challenging the voluntariness of his statements, both at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Legere
...36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Reid, 34 A.D.3d at 1273, 825 N.Y.S.2d 619; see also People v. Graham, 48 A.D.3d 265, 266, 856 N.Y.S.2d 7). The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his request to admit into evidence testimony......
-
People v. Johnston
...725 N.E.2d 1098 [1999] ; see People v. Henry , 133 A.D.3d 1085, 1086-1087, 20 N.Y.S.3d 682 [3d Dept. 2015] ; People v. Graham , 48 A.D.3d 265, 266, 856 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 959, 863 N.Y.S.2d 143, 893 N.E.2d 449 [2008] ). Consequently, the court was required to su......
-
People v. Henry
...86 L.Ed.2d 717 [1985] ). Thus, County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to suppress (see People v. Graham, 48 A.D.3d 265, 266, 856 N.Y.S.2d 7 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 959, 863 N.Y.S.2d 143, 893 N.E.2d 449 [2008] ; People v. Brown, 266 A.D.2d 838, 838, 700 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. Rivera
...during his testimony at trial ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Graham, 48 A.D.3d 265, 266, 856 N.Y.S.2d 7; People v. Reid, 34 A.D.3d 1273, 1273, 825 N.Y.S.2d 619). The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's allegedly improper q......