People v. Rushion
| Decision Date | 21 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2003-04623. |
| Citation | 26 A.D.3d 448,2006 NY Slip Op 01315,808 N.Y.S.2d 912 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK RUSHION, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that his statements to law enforcement officials were involuntary. The totality of the circumstances surrounding the questioning, as established at the Huntley hearing (see People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant's written and videotaped statements were voluntarily made. The defendant was repeatedly advised of, and knowingly and intelligently waived, his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v. Williams, 62 NY2d 285 [1984]; People v. Nelson, 171 AD2d 702 [1991]) and did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel (see People v. Cotton, 277 AD2d 461 [2000]). Furthermore, there was no evidence that the defendant's statements were obtained through threats or coercion (see People v. Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 [1979], affd 50 NY2d 1 [1980]; People v. Miles, 276 AD2d 566 [2000]; People v. Sakadinsky, 239 AD2d 443 [1997]).
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict (see CPL 330.30 [3]; People v. Rivera, 108 AD2d 829 [1985]; People v. Lopez, 104 AD2d 904 [1984]), and the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to confront a polygraph examiner is without merit (see People v. Rowe, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]). The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellate review.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shepard
...694 ) and his knowing and voluntary waiver thereof (see People v. Petronio, 34 A.D.3d 602, 604, 825 N.Y.S.2d 99 ; People v. Rushion, 26 A.D.3d 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 912 ). The admission of evidence of prior convictions for the purpose of impeachment is within the discretion of the trial court, ......
-
People v. Redd
...knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v. Sepulveda, 40 A.D.3d 1014, 837 N.Y.S.2d 220 ; People v. Rushion, 26 A.D.3d 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 912 ).Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the d......
-
People v. Burroughs, Indictment No.: 09-1566
...was made (People v. Barton, 13 A.D.3d 721, 787 N.Y.S.2d 135, Iv. denied 5 N.Y.3d785, 801 N.Y.S.2d 806, 835 N.E.2d 666; People v. Rushion, 26 A.D.3d 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 912).Page 9 The evidence elicited at this pre-trial suppression hearing showed that the defendant agreed to accompany detecti......
-
People v. Johnson
...(see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) and did not invoke his right to counsel (see People v. Rushion, 26 A.D.3d 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 912). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, and since the defendant remained in continuous custody, the police were not re......