People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 19 October 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald W. MILLER Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rappaport & Rappaport (Becky L. Arnold, of counsel), Binghamton, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney (Joann Rose Parry, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted sodomy in the first degree.
Defendant was accused of sexually molesting his stepsister's 10-year-old daughter in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, during the time defendant was living with said stepsister and the child in August 1992. The complaint was made by the stepsister to the Binghamton police on September 13, 1992, and the following day defendant voluntarily appeared at the Binghamton police station and asked to see the detective who was handling the matter. The detective met with defendant, advised him of his Miranda rights, which defendant waived, and then informed him of the particulars of the complaint. During their brief conversation, defendant agreed to talk without an attorney and denied all of the accusations. In addition, he requested a "lie detector test" and after being told that he would be contacted by the District Attorney's office concerning the test, defendant left the police station.
Several weeks later an appointment was made and on October 9, 1992, defendant went to the District Attorney's office where he met an investigator who was to administer a "psychological stress evaluation" test, also known as a "voice stress evaluation" test (hereinafter PSE). Defendant was given and waived his Miranda rights and the investigator, a trained operator who had been conducting these tests since 1984, explained the test procedure to defendant and advised him that the results would not be admissible in court. The PSE consisted of a series of four separate tests and prior to each of these tests, the investigator told defendant what questions would be asked. When the testing was completed, the investigator advised defendant that he appeared to have stress in answering certain questions and, responding to a question from defendant, indicated that he would advise the detective of the test results. Defendant stated that he would contact the detective as well, and although the investigator suggested discussing the allegations further, defendant left to keep a prior appointment.
During the evening of October 10, 1992, defendant returned to the police station to talk to the detective. He was given Miranda warnings at approximately 8:15 P.M., and again waived his rights and agreed to speak to the detective without an attorney present. In response to defendant's questions, he was advised that the results of the PSE test were not admissible in court and that the detective was unable to tell defendant at that time if he would be arrested. The detective indicated that he believed defendant had sexual contact with his stepsister's daughter and after brief questioning, defendant made oral admissions which were then reduced to writing and signed by defendant at approximately 10:00 P.M.
A suppression hearing was held and County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress either the oral or written statement. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape in the first degree pursuant to a plea bargain with the understanding that he would be sentenced as a second felony offender to 4 to 8 years in prison. At sentencing County Court allowed defendant to withdraw his earlier guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty to attempted sodomy in the first degree, subject to the same sentence.
To determine whether there is merit to defendant's contention that his admissions were the product of coercion or deception and should have been suppressed, we must examine the particular circumstances of the case (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188). In this case, no misrepresentations were made to defendant that the results could be used in a trial or that the PSE test was omniscient. In addition, there was no showing of coercion, physical or otherwise, to induce defendant to take the test (see, People v. Tarsia, supra; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sobchik
...for encouraging an obdurate suspect to abandon his false claims of innocence (see, e.g., People v. Tarsia, supra; People v. Miller, 220 A.D.2d 902, 632 N.Y.S.2d 334; People v. Deskovic, 201 A.D.2d 579, 607 N.Y.S.2d 957, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 1003, 616 N.Y.S.2d 484, 640 N.E.2d 152; People v. ......
-
People v. Farless
...v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Sobchik, 228 A.D.2d 800, 802, 644 N.Y.S.2d 370; People v. Miller, 220 A.D.2d 902, 903, 632 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 882, 645 N.Y.S.2d 456, 668 N.E.2d 427). Finally, in view of defendant's long criminal history, hi......
-
People v. Williamson
...prior experience with the criminal justice system (see, People v. Sobchik, 228 A.D.2d 800, 802, 644 N.Y.S.2d 370; People v. Miller, 220 A.D.2d 902, 904, 632 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 882, 645 N.Y.S.2d 456, 668 N.E.2d 427). Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we conclude t......
-
R & D Equipment Leasing Co. Inc. v. Adduci
... ... Law § 393), as well as the constitutional mandate that there be "specific and articulable facts" to justify a vehicle safety stop (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39, quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889). The ... ...