People v. Miles

• Citation: 497 N.Y.S.2d 532,115 A.D.2d 962
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence C. MILES, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1985
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 532

497 N.Y.S.2d 532

115 A.D.2d 962

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence C. MILES, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Dec. 20, 1985.

James McCann, Avon, by James McCann, for appellant.

Theodore E. Wiggins, Jr., Geneseo, by Theodore Wiggins, for respondent.

Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DENMAN, BOOMER, GREEN and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

It was not error for the court to refuse to suppress defendant's confession. Whether defendant has knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights is determined by the totality of the circumstances (see People v. Caruso, 45 A.D.2d 804, 805, 356 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Chaffee, 42 A.D.2d 172, 174, 346 N.Y.S.2d 30). Employing that test, courts have frequently admitted statements made by defendants who are intellectually deficient (see, e.g., People v. Tigner, 48 A.D.2d 762, 368 N.Y.S.2d 92). In making such determination, the relevant factors are whether defendant has the ability to read and write (see People v. Caruso, supra; People v. Chaffee, supra, pp. 173-174, 346 N.Y.S.2d 30; People v. Blocker, 31 A.D.2d 885, 298 N.Y.S.2d 97; see also, People v. Collazo, 98 Misc.2d 58, 61-62, 412 N.Y.S.2d 943, where the confession of a defendant with an I.Q. of 73 was held admissible even though defendant could not read or write English); whether defendant is coherent and articulate in response to questioning (see People v. Bruce, 62 A.D.2d 1073, 1074, 403 N.Y.S.2d 587; People v. Blocker, supra; Matter of Kenneth C., 125 Misc.2d 227, 235, 479 N.Y.S.2d 396); and whether defendant is capable of being employed and functioning in society as an adult (see People v. Tigner, supra; People v. Chaffee, supra; People v. Lux, 34 A.D.2d 662, 310 N.Y.S.2d 416, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 848, 328 N.Y.S.2d 2, 277 N.E.2d 923). The absence of prolonged interrogation or other coercive tactics by police is, as is always the case, a relevant factor (see People v. Chaffee, supra; Matter of Kenneth C., supra). The totality of the circumstances here supports the court's denial of defendant's suppression motion. The testimony established that the police informed defendant of his Miranda rights three times and explained them to him in language which defendant indicated he understood. The statement itself is coherent and the officers described defendant's answers as responsive to their questions. Defendant appeared to read the statement to himself before signing it. Although defendant's I.Q. was in the range of 59 to 74, he could read and write English on at least a third grade level and had a working vocabulary sufficient to enable him to carry on conversations. Expert testimony was of the opinion that defendant was...