People v. Norris

• Decision Date: 07 July 1986
• Citation: 122 A.D.2d 82,504 N.Y.S.2d 491
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Paul NORRIS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 491

504 N.Y.S.2d 491

122 A.D.2d 82

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Paul NORRIS, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 7, 1986.

Hall & Murdock, Chappaqua (Nancy Murdock, of counsel), for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Joseph M. Latino and Anthony J. Servino, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAZER, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and KOOPER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered January 13, 1982, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and sodomy in the first 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 identification testimony and his statements to the police.

Judgment affirmed.

In reviewing suppression issues, great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Putland, 105 A.D.2d 199, 206, 482 N.Y.S.2d 882; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561, 479 N.Y.S.2d 267), and that determination should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record (People v. Gee, supra; People v. Boyce, 89 A.D.2d 623, 624, 452 N.Y.S.2d 676; People v. Duncan, 75 A.D.2d 823, 824, 427 N.Y.S.2d 472; see also, People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726, 469 N.Y.S.2d 137). In this case, the question of the voluntariness of the defendant's confession presented an issue of credibility, and the hearing court's resolution of that issue is supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see, People v. Alver, 111 A.D.2d 339, 340, 489 N.Y.S.2d 323). The police testimony given at the pretrial hearing indicated that Miranda warnings were administered and that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. There was no evidence corroborating the defendant's testimony to the effect that he had suffered repeated beatings at the hands of the police. In particular, a lineup photograph taken shortly after the defendant's interrogation failed to substantiate his claim that his lip had been "busted" by the police. Accordingly, the hearing court was warranted in declining to credit the defendant's testimony (see, People v. Catone, 105 A.D.2d 844, 482 N.Y.S.2d 40, mod on other grounds 65 N.Y.2d 1003, 494 N.Y.S.2d 97, 484 N.E.2d 126; People v. Chalos, 111 A.D.2d 827, 828, 491 N.Y.S.2d 8).

In addition, there is no evidence that the delay between the defendant's arrest and his arraignment was unnecessary (CPL 140.20; People v. Williams, App.Div., 502 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 259, 491 N.Y.S.2d 706), and, in any event, "unwarranted delay in arraignment is but one of the many pertinent factors bearing on the question of the voluntariness and, therefore, admissibility of a defendant's inculpatory statements" (see, People v. Dairsaw, 46 N.Y.2d 739, 740, 413 N.Y.S.2d 640, 386 N.E.2d 249, cert. denied 440 U.S. 985, 99 S.Ct. 1800, 60 L.Ed.2d 248; see also, People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1081, 462 N.Y.S.2d 639, 449 N.E.2d 419).

Further, the hearing court correctly denied suppression of evidence regarding the victim's identification of the defendant at a pretrial lineup. The evidence supports the court's conclusion that the corporeal identification procedure was not undu suggestive (see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443)....