People v. Stalter
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | REINALDO E. RIVERA |
| Citation | 909 N.Y.S.2d 516,77 A.D.3d 776 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James A. STALTER, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 12 October 2010 |
77 A.D.3d 776
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
James A. STALTER, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 12, 2010.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, N.Y., for appellant.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered December 1, 2003, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, 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 his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, a review of the totality of the circumstances ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 413, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318), demonstrates that his oral and written statements to the police, which were given after he was informed of, and waived, his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), were voluntarily made ( see CPL 60.45 [1]; People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d at 414, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials was properly denied.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the eight-year-old complainant was competent to give sworn testimony ( see CPL 60.20[2]; People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450, 453, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953; People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364). The examination of the child revealed that she knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, knew the meaning of an oath, understood that she could be punished if she lied, promised to tell the truth, and had the ability to recall and relate prior events ( see People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d at 453, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953; People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d at 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. McIver, 15 A.D.3d 677, 678, 791 N.Y.S.2d 587). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he had no right to personally attend the County Court's examination of the child ( see People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d at 453-457, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953).
The defendant's claim that testimony from three witnesses, the complainant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Li
...during her cross-examination of a police witness (see People v. Honghirun, 133 A.D.3d 882, 20 N.Y.S.3d 409 ; People v. Stalter, 77 A.D.3d 776, 776–777, 909 N.Y.S.2d 516 ; People v. Brown, 57 A.D.3d 1461, 1462, 871 N.Y.S.2d 540 ). The defendant's contention that she should have been allowed ......
-
People v. Renaud
...testimony from certain witnesses on cross-examination (see People v. Jean, 117 A.D.3d at 878, 985 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; People v. Stalter, 77 A.D.3d 776, 776–777, 909 N.Y.S.2d 516 ; People v. Grant, 54 A.D.3d 967, 967, 864 N.Y.S.2d 134 ; People v. Bryan, 50 A.D.3d 1049, 1050–1051, 856 N.Y.S.2d 227......
-
People v. Gurdon
...409, affd. 29 N.Y.3d 284, 56 N.Y.S.3d 275, 78 N.E.3d 804 ; People v. Jean, 117 A.D.3d 875, 878, 985 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; People v. Stalter, 77 A.D.3d 776, 777, 909 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). Moreover, the defendant's contention was waived when defense counsel elicited the challenged testimony on cross-exami......
-
People v. Jean
...331). In any event, “the objection was waived when the defense elicited the same testimony on cross-examination” ( People v. Stalter, 77 A.D.3d 776, 777, 909 N.Y.S.2d 516;see People v. Brown, 57 A.D.3d 1461, 1462, 871 N.Y.S.2d 540;People v. Grant, 54 A.D.3d 967, 864 N.Y.S.2d 134). The defen......
-
Hearsay
...court may refuse to review admission of inadmissible hearsay if the defendant fails to make an objection. See, e.g., People v. Stalter , 77 A.D.3d 776, 909 N.Y.S.2d 516 (2d Dept. 2010); People v. Maldonado , 220 A.D.2d 212, 631 N.Y.S.2d 850 (1st Dept. 1995). However, appellate courts may re......