People v. Pond
| Decision Date | 06 July 1995 |
| Citation | 217 A.D.2d 721,629 N.Y.S.2d 111 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roy E. POND, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lauren C. Scanlon, Binghamton, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty. (Kevin P. Dooley, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.
Before MERCURE, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, CASEY and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
On January 7, 1993, the Binghamton Police Department received a complaint that defendant was seen hugging and kissing an eight-year-old boy (hereinafter the victim), and after an interview with the victim they sought defendant for questioning. Defendant learned of the police's interest in talking to him and contacted a social worker with whom he had previously worked. After the police officers located defendant at his home, defendant, accompanied by the social worker, agreed to accompany them to the police station where he was given his Miranda rights, questioned and gave a written statement in which he admitted performing acts of oral and anal sodomy upon the victim.
At a suppression hearing two social workers who were familiar with defendant testified as to his limited mental capabilities, but acknowledged that defendant could have understood the questions asked during the interrogation and that he would have been able to refrain from speaking about a particular subject if he did not wish to do so, while a clinical psychologist testified that defendant had an IQ of 74 and functioned at a third-grade level. In addition, the record indicates that the police officers, who were aware of defendant's limitations, were scrupulous in reading and explaining the Miranda warnings to him slowly and carefully, even though defendant advised them that he knew his rights. Further, defendant read portions of the warnings aloud without any detectable problem, and after being specifically told that he did not have to speak without an attorney and that an attorney would be provided for him, defendant stated that he wanted to speak without a lawyer. During the questioning he answered responsively, with no apparent confusion or lack of comprehension, and signed a confession after a little over one hour of questioning.
Based on the testimony presented County Court declined to suppress this statement, finding that defendant's testimony at the hearing established his ability to comprehend concepts regarding legal rights and his ability to reject suggestion and pressure. Further, the court found no confusion or lack of comprehension on the part of defendant and that he was able to read and had the capability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his rights. Thus, County Court found that the statement was voluntarily given by defendant without police coercion, and that he had knowingly waived his right to counsel.
Defendant, who was not unfamiliar with police procedures, contends that he is a person of limited mental capacity, unable to make a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights, and that his confession was a consequence of police coercion and overbearing.
The question distills to whether defendant, concededly mildly retarded, could understand his Miranda warnings and make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights. In People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327, the Court of Appeals upheld the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights where the defendant, a functionally illiterate, borderline mentally retarded man who waived his rights, spoke to the police and made incriminating statements. There the court held that an accused's level of intelligence is one factor to be considered in assessing the voluntariness of the confession, unless the degree of retardation is so great as to render the accused completely incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of his confession. In the instant case defendant, who had prior experience with the criminal justice system involving proceedings of a similar nature where he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lyons
...A.D.2d 726, 728–729, 759 N.Y.S.2d 251 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 596, 766 N.Y.S.2d 172, 798 N.E.2d 356 [2003] ; People v. Pond, 217 A.D.2d 721, 722, 629 N.Y.S.2d 111 [1995] ). The record likewise belies defendant's argument that he made an unequivocal request for counsel (see People v. Me......
-
People v. Lyons
... ... incapacity impacted his waiver of his Miranda rights ... (see People v Garrand, 189 A.D.3d 1763, 1768-1769 ... [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1120 [2021]; People ... v Marx, 305 A.D.2d 726, 728-729 [2003], lv ... denied 100 N.Y.2d 596 [2003]; People v Pond, ... 217 A.D.2d 721, 722 [1995]). The record likewise belies ... defendant's argument that he made an unequivocal request ... for counsel (see People v Meadows, 180 A.D.3d 1244, ... 1245 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 994 [2020]; ... People v Jabaut, 111 A.D.3d 1140, 1142 ... ...
-
People v. Diaz
...v. Batista, 235 A.D.2d 631, 632, 652 N.Y.S.2d 645, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1088, 660 N.Y.S.2d 382, 682 N.E.2d 983; People v. Pond, 217 A.D.2d 721, 723, 629 N.Y.S.2d 111). Lastly, we are unconvinced that County Court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant as it did, given the callous nat......
-
People v. Crane
...Miranda warnings and find that the denial of defendant's suppression motion regarding these statements was proper (see, People v. Pond, 217 A.D.2d 721, 629 N.Y.S.2d 111). Finally, in view of the repulsive nature of these crimes, committed upon innocent children who were entrusted into defen......