People v. Hester

Decision Date14 May 1990
Citation161 A.D.2d 665,556 N.Y.S.2d 97
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William HESTER, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Steven R. Bernhard, Mineola, for appellant.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Lisa J. Becker, of counsel), for respondent.

Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and MILLER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 5, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted after trial of robbing a well-lit Kentucky Fried Chicken store, which he exited by jumping through its plate glass window. He was apprehended immediately, near the scene, carrying the exact amount of cash reported stolen and matching the description given by the store's employees. The employees identified the defendant at that time, and at trial.

Approximately 5 1/2 hours after the defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned, a desk officer at the precinct requested him to answer questions posed on a physical fitness form questionnaire used to process prisoners. When asked if he had head injuries, the defendant replied that he had cuts on his hand and foot. When asked how he received them, the defendant said he jumped through a plate glass window in Hempstead that night. The latter statement contradicted the defendant's claim of innocence made to other officers earlier in the evening. The form was filled out by the desk sergeant, and signed by the defendant. The statement was used at trial on the People's direct case.

The defendant contends that use of the statement was reversible error because the questioning was not preceded by Miranda warnings, and furthermore, the prosecution failed to comply with the 15-day notice of intent to offer the statement in evidence pursuant to CPL 710.30(2).

The trial court ruled that the statement fell within the pedigree exception to Miranda and was not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements. Pedigree questions may be asked of a defendant without providing Miranda warnings, and are limited in scope to those necessary for processing a defendant or providing for his physical needs (People v. Rodgers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709; People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850; People v. Antonio, 86 A.D.2d 614, 615, 446 N.Y.S.2d 96). The test for suppression is not whether the information is inculpatory but "whether the police were trying to inculpate defendant or merely processing him" (People v. Nelson, 147 A.D.2d 774, 776, 537 N.Y.S.2d 995; People v. Vasquez, 111 Misc.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • People v. Raucci
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 27, 2013
    ...147 A.D.2d 774, 776, 537 N.Y.S.2d 995 [1989],lv. denied74 N.Y.2d 794, 545 N.Y.S.2d 556, 544 N.E.2d 234 [1989];see People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 666, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1990],lv. denied76 N.Y.2d 858, 560 N.Y.S.2d 998, 561 N.E.2d 898 [1990] ). Accordingly, we discern no basis upon which to ......
  • People v. Reichel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 1, 2022
    ...the police were trying to inculpate defendant or merely" asking questions inherent to the task of processing him ( People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 666, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2d Dept. 1990] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 858, 560 N.Y.S.2d 998, 561 N.E.2d 89......
  • People v. Moore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 14, 2016
    ...Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862 ; People v. Matos, 133 A.D.3d 885, 889, 21 N.Y.S.3d 267 ; People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 666, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for a......
  • People v. Richard
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 31, 1996
    ...the defendant's present physical condition and were necessary in order to provide for the defendant's physical needs (People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 666, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 858, 560 N.Y.S.2d 998, 561 N.E.2d 898; see, People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 422 N.Y.S.2d 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT