People v. Marinus

• Decision Date: 06 December 2011
• Citation: 90 A.D.3d 677,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08957,933 N.Y.S.2d 872
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher MARINUS, appellant.

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08957

90 A.D.3d 677

933 N.Y.S.2d 872

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Christopher MARINUS, appellant.

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

Dec. 6, 2011.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Robert L. Cicale and John Dowden of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green and Michael Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered January 7, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second 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 his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements he gave to law enforcement officials on July 1, 2007, and July 11, 2007. The credibility determinations made by the County Court after a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588; People v. Smith, 77 A.D.3d 980, 981, 910 N.Y.S.2d 492; People v. Leggio, 305 A.D.2d 518, 519, 761 N.Y.S.2d 74). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the County Court's determination that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at the time the statements were made ( see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172, cert. denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89; People v. Borukhova, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 931 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2d Dept 2011]; People v. Smith, 77 A.D.3d at 981, 910 N.Y.S.2d 492; People v. Perez, 44 A.D.3d 441, 442, 843 N.Y.S.2d 278; People v. Dillhunt, 41 A.D.3d 216, 217, 839 N.Y.S.2d 18). Accordingly, the statements were not the product of custodial interrogation improperly conducted without the administration of Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was...