People v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 04 May 2010 |
| Citation | 899 N.Y.S.2d 659,73 A.D.3d 811 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nakwan NELSON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anne C. Feigus of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered March 7, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (J. Goldberg, J.), 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.
Prior to being advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), the defendant made a brief oral statement to a detective indicating that he was "with" the perpetrators at the time of the subject robbery and homicide, but was standing across the street. The hearing court suppressed this statement upon the ground that it was the product of custodial interrogation conducted before the administration of Miranda warnings. However, the hearing court found that the inculpatory statements the defendant made to law enforcement officials after waiving his Miranda rights were voluntary and admissible.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his post-Miranda statements should have been suppressed because they were tainted by the prior statement. We disagree. Under these circumstances, the pre-Miranda statement was not so incriminating in nature that it can be said to have committed the defendant to confessing to the crime (see People v. Holmes, 145 A.D.2d 908, 909, 536 N.Y.S.2d 289), and there is noevidence that the defendant felt so committed by the pre-Miranda statement that he believed himself bound to confess (see People v. Duncan, 295 A.D.2d 533, 535, 744 N.Y.S.2d 444; People v. Morgan, 277 A.D.2d 331, 715 N.Y.S.2d 754; People v. James, 253 A.D.2d 438, 440, 676 N.Y.S.2d 628). In any event, the defendant's post-Miranda statements followed a pronounced break in the interrogation, which would have attenuated any potential taint from his earlier statements (see People v. Paulman, 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Townsend
... ... White, 10 N.Y.3d 286, 292, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534, 886 N.E.2d 156,cert. denied555 U.S. 897, 129 S.Ct. 221, 172 L.Ed.2d 167;People v. Nelson, 73 A.D.3d 811, 899 N.Y.S.2d 659;People v. Parker, 50 A.D.3d 1607, 856 N.Y.S.2d 779;People v. Davis, 287 A.D.2d 376, 732 N.Y.S.2d 1;People v. Hawthorne, 160 A.D.2d 727, 728729, 553 N.Y.S.2d 799). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the County Court allowed a witness ... ...
-
People v. Zalevsky
... ... White, 10 N.Y.3d 286, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534, 886 N.E.2d 156, cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 221, 172 L.Ed.2d 167; People v. Paulman, 5 N.Y.3d 122, 800 N.Y.S.2d 96, 833 N.E.2d 239; People v. Nelson, 73 A.D.3d 811, 899 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Foddrell, 65 A.D.3d 1375, 1377, 887 N.Y.S.2d 590).The defendant's contentions raised in point III(C) of his pro se supplemental brief and his contentions that the trial court failed to charge the jury on the standards of proof for conviction and the ... ...
-
Nelson v. Heath
... ... On May 4, 2010, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment. People v. Nelson, 899 N.Y.S.2d 659 (2d Dep't 2010). With respect to Nelson's counseled argument, the court held that Page 7 the pre-Miranda statement was not so incriminating in nature that it can be said to have committed the defendant to confessing to the crime, and there is no evidence that the ... ...
-
People v. Escamilla
...168 A.D.3d 75891 N.Y.S.3d 197The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,v.Alex ESCAMILLA, Appellant.201509039Ind. No. 5027/12Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.ArguedSeptember 25, 2018January 9, 201991 N.Y.S.3d 198Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.DECISION & ORDER168 A.D.3d 758Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of ... ...