People v. Schultz

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: ROSENBLATT
• Citation: People v. Schultz, 590 N.Y.S.2d 729, 187 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
• Decision Date: 02 November 1992
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John C. SCHULTZ, Appellant.

Page 729

590 N.Y.S.2d 729

187 A.D.2d 466

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John C. SCHULTZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

November 2, 1992

Brenda V. Mechmann, Tuckahoe, for appellant. Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Gerald W. Connolly and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (La Cava, J.), rendered February 26, 1991, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, in part, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. We disagree with the defendant's contention that his station-house statement, given after he waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), was tainted by the illegality of a prior inadmissible statement. The defendant was not subjected to such continuous interrogation as to render the Miranda warnings ineffective (see, People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243; People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 502 N.Y.S.2d 713, 493 N.E.2d 937). Furthermore, the interval of time between the making of the two statements, in conjunction with the intervening circumstances, provided sufficient attenuation to remove any taint which could be attributable to the inadmissible statement ( see, People v. Ates, 157 A.D.2d 786, 787, 550 N.Y.S.2d 386; People v. Chapple, supra ). Additionally, the defendant did not testify at the suppression hearing and no evidence was adduced in support of his contention that the station-house statement was involuntarily given on constraint of the prior inadmissible statement,...