People v. Persons
| Decision Date | 18 December 1997 |
| Citation | 245 A.D.2d 845,666 N.Y.S.2d 773 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,087 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James K. PERSONS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul Robert Maher, Clifton Park, for appellant.
Robert M. Winn, District Attorney (Katherine G. Henley, of counsel), Fort Edward, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, CASEY and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett Jr., J.), rendered January 3, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (three counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree.
After it was discovered that defendant's infant son had sustained serious injuries, including bruises and broken bones, at different times during the six weeks since his birth, defendant voluntarily accompanied police personnel to the State Police barracks for questioning. While there, he admitted to having treated the baby roughly on three different occasions and signed a written statement detailing those incidents. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as previously indicated and sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 1/2 to 21 years' incarceration; defendant appeals.
Defendant's principal argument consists of challenges to the admissibility and probity of his written confession. At trial, however, defendant expressly waived any argument with respect to whether that confession--earlier he had also made inculpatory oral admissions--was taken in violation of his legal rights, focusing instead on whether the written confession was, in fact, an accurate reflection of what he had actually said to the interviewing officers. Accordingly, his contention that he was not properly informed of his Miranda rights, prior to the initiation of police interrogation, has not been preserved for review (see, People v. Waters, 90 N.Y.2d 826, 828, 660 N.Y.S.2d 379, 682 N.E.2d 980). Nor is there force to his contention that the record evidence does not support a finding that the confession was voluntary and truthful. Furthermore, given our belief that the confession was indeed lawfully obtained and credible, no useful purpose would be served by our considering defendant's hypothesis that, absent this statement along with the accompanying audiotape of a police officer reading it and defendant acknowledging the correctness of its contents, the trial evidence would have been insufficient to support the conviction.
Defendant also maintains that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. German
...of the People's summation (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 455 N.Y.S.2d 593, 441 N.E.2d 1111; People v. Persons, 245 A.D.2d 845, 666 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Dexheimer, 214 A.D.2d 898, 625 N.Y.S.2d 719, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 872, 635 N.Y.S.2d 954, 659 N.E.2d 777) and we d......
-
People v. Wilson
...667 N.E.2d 350). His complaints regarding the prosecutor's summation have not been preserved for our review (see, People v. Persons, 245 A.D.2d 845, 846, 666 N.Y.S.2d 773). In any event, defendant has not shown that the prosecutor's remarks prejudiced him to the extent of depriving him of a......
-
People v. Castle
...summation, which in any event constituted fair comment on issues raised in defendant's closing statement (see, People v. Persons, 245 A.D.2d 845, 666 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 670, 674, 628 N.Y.S.2d 211, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 791, 632 N.Y.S.2d 504, 656 N.E.2d 603), and we are......
-
People v. Wallace, 12341
...jurors without maintaining an objection or requesting a mistrial, these issues were arguably not preserved for review (see, People v Persons, 245 A.D.2d 845, 846), but shall be addressed by this Court in exercising its interest of justice 3 The investigator stated that he was unable to clea......