People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 12 June 2015
• Docket Number: 711.2 KA 03-00716
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 1522
11 N.Y.S.3d 359
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05025

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Eric HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.).

711.2 KA 03-00716

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

June 12, 2015.

11 N.Y.S.3d 361

David J. Pajak, Alden, for Defendant–Appellant.

Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

129 A.D.3d 1522

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a resentence following the entry of the judgment in appeal No. 2, which convicted him following a jury trial of numerous offenses, including assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[3] ) and arson in the second degree (§ 150.15). He was sentenced to various determinate and indeterminate terms of incarceration, but County Court failed to impose periods of postrelease supervision on the determinate sentences as required by Penal Law § 70.45(1). To correct that oversight, the court in appeal No. 1 resentenced defendant to the original terms of incarceration and imposed the requisite periods of postrelease supervision (see generally Correction Law § 601–d ). In appeal No. 3, defendant appeals from an order denying his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction in appeal No. 2.

Addressing first defendant's contentions with respect to the judgment in appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant at the crime scene and, subsequently, at the police station. Defendant's initial statements at the scene were made to the first trooper who arrived at the scene, in response to questions concerning how the ongoing fire had been

11 N.Y.S.3d 362

started and if there was anyone else inside the residence. Those statements are admissible inasmuch as defendant was not in custody (see People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d 1333, 1333, 974 N.Y.S.2d 827, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1158, 984 N.Y.S.2d 642, 7 N.E.3d 1130 ; see generally People v. Paulman, 5 N.Y.3d 122, 129, 800 N.Y.S.2d 96, 833 N.E.2d 239 ), and the trooper's questions were proper based on “the

129 A.D.3d 1523

‘emergency doctrine’ ” (People v. Doll, 21 N.Y.3d 665, 670, 975 N.Y.S.2d 721, 998 N.E.2d 384, rearg. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1053, 981 N.Y.S.2d 359, 4 N.E.3d 371, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1552, 188 L.Ed.2d 568 ), i.e., legitimate public safety concerns. After defendant was taken into custody, he was issued Miranda warnings by a different trooper. During the entire conversation between defendant and that trooper, defendant was shaking his head left to right. When asked if he understood the warnings, defendant responded affirmatively and, when asked if he wished to talk to the trooper, defendant remained silent.

One hour later, two investigators attempted to talk to defendant at the scene but, before they did so, one of the investigators asked defendant if he had been read the Miranda warnings, if those warnings had been read by a uniformed sergeant, if defendant understood those warnings and if he would agree to talk to the troopers. Defendant, who was no longer shaking his head left to right, responded affirmatively to each question, and made several incriminating statements. Shortly thereafter, defendant was transported to a local police station, where he was interviewed and gave three separate written statements. Several hours after his arrival at the police station, the first statement was printed out. Defendant read out loud his Miranda warnings from the top of that first statement, and he affirmatively waived the Miranda rights. At no time during the entire process did defendant ask to speak with an attorney or ask the investigators to stop speaking with him. Further, at no point did anyone threaten defendant or make any promises to him. Throughout the interview, the college-educated defendant was courteous and cooperative, although he had one hand cuffed to the wall.

Defendant correctly contends that he did not explicitly waive his Miranda rights while at the crime scene or before the interview process began at the police station. It is well settled, however, “that ‘an explicit verbal waiver is not required; an implicit waiver may suffice and may be inferred from the circumstances' ” (People v. Jones, 120 A.D.3d 1595, 1595, 992 N.Y.S.2d 823 ; see People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479 ; People v. Davis, 55 N.Y.2d 731, 733, 447 N.Y.S.2d 149, 431 N.E.2d 634 ). Here, defendant agreed to speak with investigators after confirming that he had been issued Miranda warnings and understood those warnings. We thus conclude that a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights may be inferred from the circumstances (see Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d at 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479 ; Jones, 120 A.D.3d at 1595, 992 N.Y.S.2d 823 ).

Defendant further contends that the investigators should have repeated the Miranda warnings at the police station before any questioning began. We reject that contention.

129 A.D.3d 1524

“[W]here, as here, ‘a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody [was] continuous' ” (People v. Johnson, 20 A.D.3d 939, 939, 798 N.Y.S.2d 637, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 853, 806 N.Y.S.2d 173, 840 N.E.2d 142 ; see People v. Peterkin, 89 A.D.3d 1455, 1455–1456, 932 N.Y.S.2d 639, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 885, 939 N.Y.S.2d 755, 963 N.E.2d 132 ; People v. Debo, 45 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 844 N.Y.S.2d 800, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 809, 857 N.Y.S.2d 43, 886 N.E.2d 808 ). Here, because defendant was issued the Miranda warnings at the crime scene, reaffirmed his understanding of those warnings at the crime scene and implicitly waived those rights at the crime scene, there was no need to repeat the warnings before defendant was questioned at the station a short time later.

Defendant further contends that the court's jury instruction and the People's proof at trial materially varied from the allegations in the indictment with respect to the first count of the indictment and rendered that count of the indictment duplicitous. Following the close of proof at trial, the court instructed the jury that it could convict defendant of that count, charging defendant with assault in the first degree, if it found, inter alia, that defendant “beat [the victim] with a piece of wood and/or his fists.” The court repeated that instruction after a request from the jury. The indictment, however, alleged that defendant “beat[ ] her with his fists and a piece of wood” (emphasis added).

While defendant seemingly contends that the indictment was rendered duplicitous by the court's instruction, defendant's actual contention is not that the proof at the trial established more than one assault but, rather that the court's instruction to the jury “differed significantly from the theory of the crime charged in the indictment” (People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 326, 473 N.Y.S.2d 941, 462 N.E.2d 118 ), and thus violated his “right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes and upon only those theories charged in the indictment” ...