People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 June 1989 |
| Citation | 543 N.Y.S.2d 121,151 A.D.2d 792 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Larry SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Capetola & Doddato, Williston Park (Patricia A. Harrington, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Anthony J. Girese, Bruce Whitney and Lisa J. Becker, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, KUNZEMAN and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered February 24, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
The People do not deny their failure to comply with the 15-day notice requirement of CPL 710.30 with respect to statements made by the defendant to Officers Giannone and Lavin. The defendant does not raise an issue of a lack of voluntariness in the making of the statements to Officer Giannone but argues that the People's failure to demonstrate good cause for not furnishing such notice required suppression of those statements pursuant to the strict construction approach of People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 522 N.Y.S.2d 498, 517 N.E.2d 213; see also, People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006, 541 N.Y.S.2d 760, 539 N.E.2d 588. However, because the voluntariness of the defendant's statements to Officer Giannone is not in issue, strict compliance with CPL 710.30 was not required (see, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 178, 397 N.Y.S.2d 613, 366 N.E.2d 273; People v. Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641, 526 N.Y.S.2d 224; compare, People v. O'Doherty, supra). Moreover, since the defendant's remarks to Officer Lavin were suppressed, albeit for failure to give the defendant the requisite preinterrogation warnings, the decision of the hearing court should be sustained.
We also conclude that the branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress statements made in the patrol car while en route to the police precinct, for which notice was given, was properly denied. Although it is undisputed that such statements were made while the defendant was in custody and without the benefit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...likely to elicit incriminatory responses (see, People v. Padron, 118 A.D.2d 599, 499 N.Y.S.2d 202 [ (1986) ] ).”People v. Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792, 793, 543 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (1989).The question Jenkins asked Thompson—whether he was related to Mookie Moore—was not a question designed to elicit......
-
People v. Mathurine
...1025, 489 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 478 N.E.2d 223 [1985]affd.65 N.Y.2d 837, 493 N.Y.S.2d 129, 482 N.E.2d 924 [1985]; People v. Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792, 543 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept. 1989]appeal denied74 N.Y.2d 900, 548 N.Y.S.2d 432, 547 N.E.2d 959 [1989] ). Since “CPL § 710.30(1)(a) is a notice statute in......
-
People v. Wilmot
...The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792, 543 N.Y.S.2d 121; People v. Hylton, 198 A.D.2d 301, 603 N.Y.S.2d BALLETTA, J.P., and COPERTINO, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur. ...
-
People v. Ziskin
...of a defendant's statement is not in issue strict compliance with CPL § 710.30 is not required. Thus, in People v. Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792, 543 N.Y.S.2d 121 (2d Dept.), app. denied 74 N.Y.2d 900, 548 N.Y.S.2d 432, 547 N.E.2d 959 (1989), the court found that the People's failure to serve timel......