People v. Vargas
| Decision Date | 14 January 1991 |
| Citation | 169 A.D.2d 746,564 N.Y.S.2d 486 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Felipe VARGAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lloyd M. Bleecker, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Roseann B. Mackechnie and Anthea H. Bruffee, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, LAWRENCE and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered July 15, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On the afternoon of July 20, 1980, the defendant, then 15 years old, and two accomplices robbed and stabbed to death an elderly man they found waiting on the elevated platform of the Kosciusko Street subway station. One of his accomplices confessed and implicated the defendant in the crime.
The defendant was arrested outside his home in the presence of his mother and she accompanied him to the precinct. They were taken to the juvenile interview room where a detective read the defendant his Miranda rights in English and he acknowledged and waived them. Another detective read these rights to the defendant's mother in Spanish, and explained that the detectives were going to question her son about a homicide. The mother remained with the defendant during the ensuing questioning, which was in English.
Contrary to the defendant's argument on appeal, the failure of the police to translate the questioning into Spanish for his mother did not violate any provision of the Family Court Act or the Criminal Procedure Law. Central to the defendant's challenge is his contention that the police failed to comply with Family Court Act § 305.2. We reject this claim for several reasons.
First, Family Court Act § 305.2 had not yet been enacted at the time of the defendant's arrest. Second, even had the statute been in effect, it would not have applied to the defendant. Because he was arrested as a juvenile offender (see, CPL 1.20[42] and not as a juvenile delinquent, the defendant was entitled to the protections of the CPL but not the greater protections of the Family Court Act (see, People v. Bonaparte, 130 A.D.2d 673, 515 N.Y.S.2d 599). Thus, the police discharged their statutory duty by immediately notifying the defendant's mother of his arrest and the place of detention (see, CPL 140.20[6]....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCray
...to determine whether the statute applies to interrogations of juvenile offenders, as opposed to juvenile delinquents (People v. Vargas, 169 A.D.2d 746, 564 N.Y.S.2d 486 lv. denied77 N.Y.2d 1001, 571 N.Y.S.2d 927, 575 N.E.2d Defendant argues that, in view of the absence of trauma to the vagi......
- People v. Terry
-
People v. Charles
...protections of Family Court Act § 305.2(7) and § 724(b)(ii) (People v. Abiodun L., 241 A.D.2d 774, 660 N.Y.S.2d 761; People v. Vargas, 169 A.D.2d 746, 564 N.Y.S.2d 486, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 1001, 571 N.Y.S.2d 927, 575 N.E.2d 413; People v. Bonaparte, 130 A.D.2d 673, 515 N.Y.S.2d 599). In an......
-
People v. Richardson
...applies in instances where the suspect is interrogated as a juvenile offender, as opposed to a juvenile delinquent (see People v. Vargas, 169 A.D.2d 746, 564 N.Y.S.2d 486, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 1001, 571 N.Y.S.2d 927, 575 N.E.2d 413), the credible evidence establishes that defendant was ques......