People v. Vega

• Decision Date: 14 March 1996
• Citation: 225 A.D.2d 890,639 N.Y.S.2d 511
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alex M. VEGA, Also Known as Lauro Q. Garcia, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 511

639 N.Y.S.2d 511

225 A.D.2d 890

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alex M. VEGA, Also Known as Lauro Q. Garcia, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

March 14, 1996.

Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and YESAWICH, JJ.

YESAWICH, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 16, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

It was established at trial that on the morning of July 18, 1991, the victim was traveling eastbound on Interstate Route 88 in Schoharie County, when her car became disabled and she pulled onto the road shoulder. Defendant, a truck driver, stopped and apparently offered to take the victim to secure gasoline or ether at a nearby convenience store. While at the store, the two were photographed by a surveillance camera and observed by witnesses. Shortly after noon that same day, the victim was found--blindfolded, bound and wrapped in a comforter--on railroad tracks beneath a Route 88 overpass in Broome County. Seriously injured, she was transported to a hospital where she died in surgery.

The victim's clothes were subsequently discovered in a dumpster at a truck stop in adjacent Tioga County. Assiduous investigation revealed that a truck driver matching defendant's description and driving a tractor-trailer from Okemos, Michigan, had used the victim's credit card to purchase gasoline at that truck stop at approximately 12:30 P.M. on July 18, 1991. Other purchases, using her credit cards, had also been made at several locations between Tioga County and Lansing, Michigan, during the period from July 18 to July 20, 1991. Questioned by New York State Police investigators on July 21, 1991, the owner of a trucking company in Okemos tentatively identified defendant from the surveillance camera tape as his employee. The next day, when defendant reported to the company office and turned in a gas receipt matching the purchase made in Tioga County, the New York investigators queried him about the victim's case, as well as a similar incident that had occurred near Ypsilanti, Michigan, earlier in the same month. Defendant admitted taking the victim to get gas--in gratitude for which, he asserted, she had given him her credit card--and having had consensual sexual intercourse with her, after which he allegedly returned her to her car and she drove away. He also admitted having had sex with the Michigan woman, but claimed that, too, was consensual.

Upon further questioning, defendant disclosed that he had more of the victim's credit cards at his home and made other inculpatory statements. He was arrested and a search warrant was obtained for his residence in Lansing. When the warrant was executed, additional incriminating evidence was detected. Ultimately convicted of intentional murder, felony murder, kidnapping, robbery, rape and sexual abuse, and sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 44 years to life, defendant appeals.

Initially, we find defendant's criticism that he was not adequately informed of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) unjustified. Although State Police Investigator David McElligott did not read defendant his rights from a card, as is the usual practice, but recited them from memory, the warnings given by this experienced investigator were adequate and fully conveyed to defendant his rights. No more is required (see, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696; People v. Bartlett, 191 A.D.2d 574, 575, 595 N.Y.S.2d 89, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1010, 600 N.Y.S.2d 198, 616 N.E.2d 855). As for defendant's claims that the warnings did not apprise him of his right to consult with counsel, as opposed to merely having a lawyer present during questioning, and did not make it clear that an attorney could be appointed before questioning began, they are simply not borne out by the record. Similarly unconvincing is his assertion that he was not advised of his right to stop answering questions and request an attorney at any time; it is worth noting, in this regard, that he did precisely that, without further prompting, later in the afternoon.

And although defendant suggests otherwise, we do not view his brief periods of unresponsiveness during the officers' questioning as tantamount to an invocation of his right to counsel, or the statements he made during the interrogation as being involuntary. Only an unequivocal request for an attorney triggers the right to counsel (see, People v. Davis, 193 A.D.2d 1142, 598 N.Y.S.2d 622). Significantly, here, as soon as defendant made such a request, the questioning ceased. As for the voluntariness of his statements, there is no indication that any activity on the part of the police, or other circumstance attending the questioning, was unduly coercive or otherwise improper (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Jordan, 193 A.D.2d 890, 892, 597 N.Y.S.2d 807, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 756, 603 N.Y.S.2d 997, 624 N.E.2d 183; People v. Padilla, 133 A.D.2d 353, 354, 519 N.Y.S.2d 254, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 1009, 526 N.Y.S.2d 944, 521 N.E.2d 1087).

Defendant also maintains that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the Michigan search warrants. The only issue respecting the validity of these warrants--which were executed at defendant's home in Michigan--meriting discussion is his claim that suppression is mandated because the warrants did not comply with certain technical requirements of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. Par...