People v. Grant
| Decision Date | 13 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2015-04449,Ind. No. 340/13 |
| Citation | 170 A.D.3d 888,96 N.Y.S.3d 104 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jeryl GRANT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
170 A.D.3d 888
96 N.Y.S.3d 104
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Jeryl GRANT, Appellant.
2015-04449
Ind. No. 340/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—November 16, 2018
March 13, 2019
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (William Garnett, J.), rendered May 12, 2015, convicting him of 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 (Stephen J. Rooney), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested in connection with a shooting that occurred on November 16, 2013. Two police officers interviewed the defendant. After the defendant was shown photographs taken from a surveillance video of him at the scene of the incident, he confessed to being the shooter. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed his postarrest statements to law enforcement officials, instructed the jury that false promises had undermined the voluntariness of his statements, and given the jury
a missing witness charge regarding the police officer who testified at the suppression hearing but did not testify at trial. The defendant also contends that the surveillance video admitted into evidence was not properly authenticated.
" ‘At a hearing to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials, the People have the burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's statements were voluntary’ " ( People v. Plass, 160 A.D.3d 771, 772, 74 N.Y.S.3d 587, quoting People v. Johnson, 139 A.D.3d 967, 969, 34 N.Y.S.3d 62, affd 31 N.Y.3d 942, 73 N.Y.S.3d 113, 96 N.E.3d 209 ; see People v. Jin Cheng Lin, 26 N.Y.3d 701, 719, 27 N.Y.S.3d 439, 47 N.E.3d 718 ; People v. Thomas, 22 N.Y.3d 629, 641, 985 N.Y.S.2d 193, 8 N.E.3d 308 ; People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 288–289, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 ). A hearing court's credibility determinations are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by the record (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Johnson, 139 A.D.3d at 970, 34 N.Y.S.3d 62 ; People v. Hobson, 111 A.D.3d 958, 959, 975 N.Y.S.2d 682 ; People v. Baliukonis, 35 A.D.3d 626, 627, 829 N.Y.S.2d 112 ).
Here, the defendant contends that law enforcement officials deceived him by implying that making statements against his penal interest would be to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clark
...[NY] Statements [Admissions, Confessions]—Traditional Involuntariness, Expanded Charge on Traditional Involuntariness; People v. Grant, 170 A.D.3d 888, 889, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 ). The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the felony complaint was facially insuffi......
-
People v. Williams
...those items into evidence ( People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665 [1999] ; see People v. Grant, 170 A.D.3d 888, 890, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1031, 102 N.Y.S.3d 546, 126 N.E.3d 196 [2019] ; People v. Costello, 128 A.D.3d 848, 848, 9 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Fuentes
...665 ), as the People presented sufficient evidence that the videotape accurately represented the events depicted (see People v. Grant, 170 A.D.3d 888, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 ; 185 A.D.3d 963 People v. Torres, 167 A.D.3d 665, 88 N.Y.S.3d 493 ; People v. Martinez, 164 A.D.3d 1260, 83 N.Y.S.3d 677 ; ......
-
People v. Jones
...been damaging to the People's case (see People v. Williams , 5 N.Y.3d 732, 734, 800 N.Y.S.2d 360, 833 N.E.2d 695 ; People v. Grant , 170 A.D.3d 888, 890, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 ). The defendant contends that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when the Supreme Court limited his c......
-
Photographs, recordings & x-rays
...the video was a fair and accurate depiction of what he had observed inside the restaurant on the night of the incident. People v. Grant , 170 A.D.3d 888, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 (2d Dept. 2019). he surveillance video was properly admitted into evidence where it was authenticated by a detective who ......
-
Photographs, recordings & x-rays
...the video was a fair and accurate depiction of what he had observed inside the restaurant on the night of the incident. People v. Grant , 170 A.D.3d 888, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 (2d Dept. 2019). The surveillance video was properly admitted into evidence where it was authenticated by a detective who......
-
Photographs, recordings, & x-rays
...the video was a fair and accurate depiction of what he had observed inside the restaurant on the night of the incident. People v. Grant , 170 A.D.3d 888, 96 N.Y.S.3d 104 (2d Dept. 2019). he surveillance video was properly admitted into evidence where it was authenticated by a detective who ......