People v. Rivers

• Decision Date: 17 September 1981
• Citation: 443 N.Y.S.2d 35,83 A.D.2d 978
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith RIVERS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 35

443 N.Y.S.2d 35

83 A.D.2d 978

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith RIVERS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Sept. 17, 1981.

Livingston L. Hatch, Keeseville, for appellant.

Joseph W. Kelley, Clinton County Dist. Atty., Plattsburgh (Ronald R. Fox, Pennsauken, of counsel) for respondent.

Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, WEISS and HERLIHY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County, rendered June 3, 1980, upon a verdict convicting defendant of four counts of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and four counts of petit larceny.

As a result of incidents which allegedly occurred between February 9, 1979 and March 6, 1979 wherein defendant possessed and cashed nine checks at the behest of two other men, defendant was charged in two indictments with nine counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law, § 170.25) and nine counts of petit larceny (Penal Law, § 155.25). Following a jury trial, a guilty verdict was returned on four counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and four counts of petit larceny, these counts relating to the last four checks that were cashed. Defendant was then sentenced to indeterminate terms not to exceed three years on the possession charges and to terms of one year each on the petit larceny charges, the sentences being concurrent.

On this appeal defendant argues that two inculpatory statements which he gave to the police should have been suppressed. As to the first of these statements, however, even though it was made at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings after defendant had been taken into custody pursuant to the filing of a felony complaint and arrest warrant (see People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 424 N.Y.S.2d 892, 400 N.E.2d 1344), we find that it constituted a spontaneous declaration in no way induced, provoked or encouraged by the police, and such being the case, it was properly admitted into evidence (People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405; People v. Lanahan, 75 A.D.2d 185, 429 N.Y.S.2d 78). The circumstances surrounding this statement were that defendant had been arrested and advised of his Miranda rights and was routinely being booked when he asked Police Officer Richard Heckard why he was being charged with the same crimes as the other two men allegedly involved in the check-cashing scheme. Heckard stated that defendant was as guilty of the crimes as the other two men if he had a part in the cashing of the forged checks, and defendant immediately replied that he had done nothing wrong because the checks were not his, he had not made them out or signed them and, most significantly, he had not known that the checks were forgeries until a couple of them had been cashed. Clearly, under these circumstances, there was no extended discussion between defendant and Officer Heckard regarding the charges against defendant, nor did the officer inform...