People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 24 July 1975 |
| Citation | 49 A.D.2d 663,390 N.Y.S.2d 462 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry Leon JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patrick D. Monserrate, Broome County Dist. Atty., Binghamton, for respondent. AT Louis J. Casella, Broome County Public Defender, Binghamton (Argued by Alan S. Phillips, Binghamton), for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY, LARKIN and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeals from judgments of the County Court of Broome County, rendered June 14, 1974, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty to two indictments, each charging the crime of murder in violation of subdivision 1 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law.
As a result of a forgery investigation, the defendant, previously convicted of forgery, was picked up and taken to police headquarters. Upon arrival, he was given a Miranda warning report form, which he signed, acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights and was willing to discuss his possible involvement in a forgery. Subsequently, defendant executed a written statement by which he admitted certain forgeries. After it was ascertained that some of the forged instruments had been stolen from the same apartment house in which a woman was murdered, defendant was given a second Miranda warning form. This form clearly indicated that the police officers desired to interrogate the defendant concerning knowledge he might have about a murder. Defendant signed the warning form and indicated his willingness to discuss the murder and, after approximately three hours of questioning, denied any involvement. He did agree, however, to take a lie detector test.
Defendant was thereupon arrested for the crime of forgery in the second degree and placed in a cell. Up to this point, he had spent a total of six hours in custody. There was no further questioning until the next day, at about 1:00 P.M., when the lie detector test was given. Upon completion of the polygraph examination, the defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights and again signed a form indicating he had been apprised of his constitutional rights. He was then questioned about the murder and, approximately three hours later, executed a statement admitting his involvement in the murder in question and was arrested for the crime of murder. Immediately thereafter defendant was questioned by other police officers of the Binghamton Police Department for a period of about four hours, after which he executed a written statement which implicated him in another murder. Subsequently, on March 11, 1974, the defendant was indicted for the two murders and the forgery.
After a motion to suppress the written statements was denied, the defendant pleaded guilty to both murder charges. The forgery charge was dismissed. On this appeal, the defendant alleges that because the police failed to arraign him on the forgery charge without unnecessary delay after his arrest, he was unlawfully held by the police and, consequently, the two statements made while he was so held should have been suppressed. He also argues that he was not advised of his constitutional rights prior to the interrogation with respect to the second murder and, for this further reason, that this statement should have been suppressed. The defendant also asserts that the original arrest on the forgery charge was a sham arrest (People v. Jackson, 22 N.Y.2d 446, 293 N.Y.S.2d 265, 239 N.E.2d 869).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ridgeway
...and effectively waived her Miranda rights at F.B.I. headquarters (see, generally, People v. Davis, supra; People v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 664-665, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462, affd. 40 N.Y.2d 882, 389 N.Y.S.2d 347, 357 N.E.2d 1002). Thus, once defendant stated at F.B.I. headquarters that she was wil......
-
People v. Crosby
... ... Under appropriate circumstances, a suspect who has waived his Miranda rights need not be warned again prior to subsequent questioning (see People ... v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462, affd. 40 N.Y.2d 882, 389 N.Y.S.2d 347, 357 N.E.2d 1002; People v. Caruso, 45 A.D.2d 804, 356 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Manley, 40 A.D.2d 907, 337 N.Y.S.2d 759; People v. Sanchez, 88 Misc.2d 929, 391 N.Y.S.2d 513; United States v. Phelps, 443 F.2d 246 (5th Cir.)) ... ...
-
People v. Gonzalez
...Lugo, there was no need to reiterate the same rights to him before the videotaped statement was made. See People v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 664-65, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462 (3rd Dept.1975), aff'd, 40 N.Y.2d 882, 389 N.Y.S.2d 347, 357 N.E.2d 1002 (1976). Consistent with the professionalism and cauti......
-
People v. Sanchez
...a statement is taken, it has been held that there is no need to repeat the warnings before a subsequent interrogation. People v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462; People v. Caruso, 45 A.D.2d 804, 356 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Manley, 40 A.D.2d 907, 337 N.Y.S.2d 759; United States v. P......
-
C. Pre-Arrest Silence
...v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682 (1975); People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883 (1972). [252] People v. Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, 390 N.Y.S.2d 462 (3d Dep't 1975), aff'd, 40 N.Y.2d 882, 389 N.Y.S.2d 347 (1976); People v. Caruso, 45 A.D.2d 804, 356 N.Y.S.2d 902 (3d Dep't 197......