People v. Rankin

• Decision Date: 13 November 2014
• Citation: 998 N.Y.S.2d 573
• Court: New York County Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Dante H. RANKIN, Defendant.

998 N.Y.S.2d 573

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Dante H. RANKIN, Defendant.

County Court, Monroe County, New York.

Nov. 13, 2014.

998 N.Y.S.2d 575

Elizabeth Buckley, Esq., and Mary Randall, Esq., Assistant District Attorneys, Sandra Doorley, Esq., Monroe County District Attorney, Rochester, for the People.

Lawrence L. Kasperek, Esq., Rochester, for the Defendant.

JOHN L. DeMARCO, J.

The People gave notice of their intention to introduce at trial statements that defendant made to police investigators. Defendant moved to suppress the statements as involuntarily made. The People oppose suppression. Accordingly, the Court conducted a Huntley hearing on the matter. The hearing occurred on three separate dates—August 28, 2014, October 14, 2014, and October 23, 2014. The Court made no findings of fact on the record regarding the hearing, and the parties expressed a desire to file written closing arguments. Accordingly, the Court set a scheduling order for the return of counsels' submissions at the conclusion of the Huntley hearing on October 23, 2014. The defendant filed his written submission on or about October 31, 2014. The People filed their written response on November 10, 2014.

The Court, having reviewed counsels' written submissions as well as the exhibits received in evidence at all the prior proceedings, and based upon the credible testimony elicited over the course of the hearing, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

Investigator Dave Giudici (Investigator Giudici) and Investigator Dave Simpson (Investigator Simpson) interviewed defendant on December 3, 2013 at the Public Safety Building (PSB). The investigators began the interview at approximately 12:52 p.m. by introducing themselves to the defendant and asking him pedigree

998 N.Y.S.2d 576

questions. Investigator Giudici advised defendant of his Miranda rights at approximately 12:57 p.m. and obtained the requisite rights waiver, after which a conversation occurred. The entire conversation, including the rights advisement and waiver, was electronically recorded and received as People's exhibits 9 and 10, without objection, at the hearing. The Court has since reviewed the rights waiver and the recording.

Investigator Giudici testified, in pertinent part, as follows.¹ The defendant was at no time, and in no way, coerced or threatened, or promised anything to get him to talk. The defendant did not appear to be sick, exhibited no signs of injury or indicia of intoxication and was at all times responsive to the questions posed to him. The defendant had not consumed any drugs or alcohol on the day of the interview. Investigator Giudici also testified that the defendant never asked for an attorney or for the conversation to stop. Throughout the approximately nine hours, or so, the defendant was held in the interview room,² he was afforded numerous breaks, time to go to the bathroom, cigarettes, and food and drink. Although defendant initially contrived a story that he was at a different location at the time of the shooting thereby proclaiming his innocence, he ultimately acknowledged for the first time, in sum and substance, at approximately 4:06 p.m. on the interview monitor,³ that he was the front seat passenger in the suspect vehicle from which he fired two shots at the victim with a handgun. The defendant thereafter makes various additional incriminating admissions.

At about 4:36 p.m., Investigators Giudici and Simpson stepped out of the interview room. Investigator Giudici was then advised by Investigator Sergeant Zenelovic (Sergeant Zenelovic) that assistant public defender, Joshua Stubbe (Stubbe), had called the police department claiming that he represented the defendant. Investigators Giudici and Simpson, after receiving additional information from Sergeant Zenelovic,⁴ re-entered the interview room at 4:43:40 p.m. Investigator Simpson, after reassuring the defendant, in substance, of the potential value of telling his side of the story to the police, at 4:44:39 p.m. asks the defendant whether he knows "a dude named Josh Stubbe." The defendant responds by shaking his head in the negative and asks, "Who is that?" Investigator Simpson states, "You never heard of the guy before, you never met him?" Defendant shakes his head side to side in the negative. Investigator Simpson states, "... [D]on't say anything, just hear out what I gotta [sic] say, the whole thing. Some lawyer called and asked, said that he was Josh Stubbe and that he was gonna [sic] represent you, okay?" Defendant casually shakes his head in the affirmative. Investigator Simpson continues, "Now,

998 N.Y.S.2d 577

hold on and listen to me. If he represents you, then you can't talk to me anymore and get your version out, okay, and explain things, okay? If you want, okay, and at this point don't want him to represent you, you can tell us that and we can keep going and get your version out here which is gonna [sic] be a benefit, okay?" Defendant, chin to his chest, does not respond and remains motionless. Investigator Simpson presses onward, "Do you wanna [sic] keep talking to us and get your whole explanation out?" After a slight pause, defendant lifts his chin from his chest and shakes his head in the affirmative. Simultaneously, Investigator Simpson interposes, "Yes or no[,]" to which defendant responds, "Yeah." Investigator Simpson states, "So you wanna [sic] keep talking to us?" Defendant says, " Yeah." Investigator Simpson confirms, "So at this point, you don't want Josh Stubbe to represent you at this point?" Defendant shakes his head in the negative and quietly mutters "No." Simpson concludes, "But another time you can, okay? Defendant looks up and says, "Okay." Investigator Simpson says, " Alright?" Defendant mildly shakes his head in the affirmative. Simpson ascends from his chair and in an encouraging tone tells the defendant, "Keep your head up, alright[,]" and with his left hand gently taps the right side of the defendant's head. The investigators exit the interview room at approximately 4:45:46 p.m. They return at approximately 4:49:40 p.m. and continue the interrogation until approximately 4:59:08 p.m. at which time the investigators exit the interview room.

At approximately 5:50:50 p.m., an unknown officer retrieved defendant from the interview room and escorted him to be fingerprinted. Defendant is returned to the interview room shortly thereafter and his girlfriend, Ida Campbell (Campbell), enters the interview room, alone, at approximately 6:12:28 p.m. Defendant and Campbell converse in the interview room outside the immediate presence of the police, though the audio-visual equipment remained operational. Defendant and Campbell conversed until approximately 6:30 p.m. at which time Campbell exits the interview room. At approximately 6:41:55 p.m. a uniformed officer enters the interview room, obtains additional pedigree information from defendant, and exits the interview room at approximately 6:46:50 p.m. The defendant is ultimately retrieved from the interview room at approximately 7:34:30 p.m.

The defense called two witnesses: Stubbe, and defendant's mother, Angel Rankin. Stubbe's testimony, which began on August 28, 2014 and concluded October 23, 2014, included, in pertinent part, that he has been employed at the Monroe County Public Defender's Office (Public Defender's Office) as an assistant public defender for twelve years, and currently serves as a Special Assistant Public Defender, assigned generally to represent financially eligible individuals charged with violent felony offenses. On December 3, 2013, defendant's mother telephoned the Public Defender's Office to enlist their services after defendant was taken into custody on the instant charge. Stubbe's testimony further established that First Assistant Public Defender Roger Brazil (Brazil) interviewed defendant's mother by telephone and found the defendant financially eligible. Some time after 4:00 p.m. that day Brazil assigned Stubbe to represent defendant. At 4:20 p.m. Stubbe, based upon information and belief that defendant was in the custody of the Rochester Police Department (RPD), contacted Investigator Gary Galetta (Investigator Galetta) by telephone, advised that he was defendant's attorney, and requested that defendant not be questioned. Stubbe also testified that he faxed a letter of representation

998 N.Y.S.2d 578

to the RPD at 4:21 p.m. The letter itself, which was received at the hearing as Defendant's exhibit C, indicates on its face that it was successfully faxed at 4:21 p.m. The letter does not state that Stubbe represents defendant on any particular charge. Rather, it requests, in substance, that the police refrain from engaging defendant in any discussion about information he may have on the criminal activity of others without Stubbe's written consent.

Defendant's mother's testimony revealed, in pertinent part, that on December 3, 2013, upon learning of defendant's arrest, she contacted the Public Defender's Office at or between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. for an attorney to represent the defendant. She spoke to a secretary and relayed to the secretary the circumstances of defendant's arrest. She provided the secretary defendant's name and date of birth, as well...