People v. Robbins

• Decision Date: 07 February 1997
• Citation: 236 A.D.2d 823,654 N.Y.S.2d 494
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark S. ROBBINS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 494

654 N.Y.S.2d 494

236 A.D.2d 823

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark S. ROBBINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Feb. 7, 1997.

James M. Perry by Alexander Manson, Lockport, for Appellant.

Matthew J. Murphy, III by Thomas Brandt, Lockport, for Respondent.

Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, CALLAHAN, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress a confession that he made to the police on July 15, 1992 regarding a homicide that occurred nine days earlier. Following a Huntley hearing, County Court determined that, although defendant had been questioned at the police station for more than four hours before being advised of his Miranda rights, he was not subjected to custodial interrogation and, thus, Miranda warnings were not required. Defendant, who was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree, contends on appeal that the court erred in denying his suppression motion. We agree.

"Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]) requires that at the time a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, he must be advised of his constitutional rights" (People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 588, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172, mot. to amend remittitur denied 26 N.Y.2d 845, 309 N.Y.S.2d 593 258 N.E.2d 90, rearg. denied 26 N.Y.2d 883, 309 N.Y.S.2d 1032, 258 N.E.2d 223, cert. denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89; see, People v. Harris, 48 N.Y.2d 208, 215, 422 N.Y.S.2d 43, 397 N.E.2d 733). "Warnings, to be effective under the combined holdings in Miranda and Westover [v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694], must precede the subjection of a defendant to questioning. Later is too late, unless there is such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning" (People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243; see, People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 366, 502 N.Y.S.2d 713, 493 N.E.2d 937). The test for determining whether someone was in custody is "what a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the defendant's position" (People v. Yukl, supra, at 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172).

Defendant arrived at the police station at 7:50 P.M. and was placed in an interview room with two detectives. The interview commenced at 8:00 P.M. and, when defendant repeatedly denied wrongdoing, the questioning became accusatory in nature. The detectives confronted defendant with evidence contradicting his statements and told him that his brother was at the station giving a "formal statement" to the police. The interview was conducted in a police-dominated atmosphere, with at least seven different officers questioning defendant in teams of two or more. Although defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the station and was not handcuffed, he was never left alone; a detective accompanied him when he went to the bathroom. At about 9:30 P.M., defendant said that he was tired and asked whether he could go home. The questioning continued, however, until 1:58 A.M., when defendant signed his confession. Defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights until 12:12 A.M., more than four hours...