People v. Lloyd–Douglas

• Decision Date: 30 January 2013
• Citation: 102 A.D.3d 986,958 N.Y.S.2d 744,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00511
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Collin F. LLOYD–DOUGLAS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

102 A.D.3d 986

958 N.Y.S.2d 744

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00511

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Collin F. LLOYD–DOUGLAS, appellant.

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

Jan. 30, 2013.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Donna Aldea of counsel), for respondent.

Taylor Prendergrass, Susannah Karlsson, and Christopher Dunn, New York, N.Y., for New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, Brennan Center for Justice, New York State Defenders Association, Pre Trial Justice Institute, New York Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Five Borough Defense, and Bronx Defenders, amici curiae (one brief filed).

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered April 6, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a videotaped statement made by him to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a videotaped statement made by him to law enforcement authorities is granted, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant moved to suppress a videotaped statement made by him to an assistant district attorney during the course of an interview conducted prior to the defendant's arraignment, pursuant to a program instituted by the Queens County District Attorney's office. In accordance with that program, a script formulated by the Queens County District Attorney's office was read to the defendant prior to administering Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), and obtaining a waiver of the defendant's rights. Because this procedure was not effective to secure the defendant's fundamental constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel, the defendant's videotaped statement should have been suppressed ( see People v. Dunbar, –––A.D.3d ––––, 958 N.Y.S.2d 764 [decided herewith] ).

Further, this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....