People v. Valentin

• Decision Date: 11 June 2014
• Citation: 118 A.D.3d 823,987 N.Y.S.2d 227,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04223
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Angel VALENTIN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 823
987 N.Y.S.2d 227
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04223

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Angel VALENTIN, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 11, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard B. Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered June 15, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, 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.

The evidence at the suppression hearing revealed that when the police arrived at the scene in response to a report of “a dispute with a knife,” they found two wounded men—the defendant and Wilfredo Suarez—and the body of Iris Cuadrado. The police handcuffed both men. After Emergency Medical Services technicians arrived, a police officer asked the defendant “what happened,” and the defendant gave an inculpatory response ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694). Later, after being advised of his rights, the defendant gave two additional inculpatory statements. On appeal, the defendant contends that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress these three statements. Specifically, he contends that his initial statement to the police was the product of a custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings, and that his two subsequent statements were tainted by that initial, unwarned statement.

Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is subjected to “custodial interrogation,” which, by definition, entails

[987 N.Y.S.2d 228]

both “custody” and “interrogation” ( see People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 33, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353;People v. Kittell, 135 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, 522 N.Y.S.2d 962;People v. Johnson, 64 A.D.2d 907, 909, 408 N.Y.S.2d 519,affd. 48 N.Y.2d 674, 421 N.Y.S.2d 881, 397 N.E.2d 392). Here, the police officer's single question did not amount to interrogation, but was merely an attempt to clarify the situation confronting the police ( see People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d at 34, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353;People v. Baker, 27 A.D.3d 887,...