People v. Walker

• Decision Date: 23 December 1999
• Citation: 267 AD2d 778,701 N.Y.S.2d 166
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,968 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hughie WALKER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 166

701 N.Y.S.2d 166

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,968

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hughie WALKER, Appellant.

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

Dec. 23, 1999.

Paul J. Connolly, Albany, for appellant.

Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (David M. Rossi of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and MUGGLIN, JJ.

MIKOLL, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered January 24, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

This appeal stems from defendant's conviction, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree based on his participation with codefendant Kevin Sowers (see, People v. Sowers, 259 A.D.2d 841, 687 N.Y.S.2d 745) in an attack on Wilder Pickard as he slept in his truck in a parking lot adjacent to the Hudson River in the City of Albany.

At approximately 11:35 P.M. on February 16, 1996, Albany Police officers responding to a call from an eyewitness arrived at the scene in time to see two suspects fleeing over a fence in the direction of the Hudson River. With the assistance of his tracking dog, K-9 Officer Anthony Salerno found defendant hiding behind brush alongside the river. Salerno brought defendant up from the river bank, where he was questioned briefly by Detective Charles Krikorian. A short time later, Sowers was also apprehended and the two men were taken to the hospital where Pickard was receiving treatment for his injuries. After Pickard positively identified defendant as one of the assailants, defendant was placed under arrest and taken to police headquarters, where Krikorian advised him of his Miranda rights. Defendant agreed to discuss the incident with Krikorian but declined to give a written statement. After his interview with Krikorian was concluded, he had a further conversation with Police Officer Joseph Carnevali during the booking process. In both of these conversations, defendant admitted to participation in the crimes.

Following indictment, defendant moved to suppress evidence of all oral statements made to Krikorian and Carnevali on the ground that they were the product of unlawful custodial interrogation. A Huntley hearing was conducted and the ensuing denial of his motion forms the principal basis of defendant's appeal. For the reasons which follow, we find that County Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion and affirm the judgment of conviction.

Krikorian testified at the Huntley hearing that when defendant was brought up from the riverbank, he appeared to match the description of one of the assailants, i.e., a black male in a Carhart jacket. Krikorian thereupon asked defendant his name, what he was doing at that location, how he had gotten there, the name of the person he had been with and the direction in which this second person had fled. After defendant answered these questions, Krikorian asked him nothing further at the scene.

Citing Krikorian's acknowledgment that he did not advise defendant of his Miranda rights prior to asking defendant the foregoing questions and that defendant was not free to leave during this period, defendant maintains that his responses should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful custodial interrogation. We do not agree. A police officer having a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime may stop and detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining his identity and an explanation of his conduct (see, CPL 140.50 ). These questions need not be preceded by Miranda warnings (see, People v. Burnett, 228 A.D.2d 788, 644 N.Y.S.2d 79; People v. Pileggi, 141 A.D.2d 866, 529 N.Y.S.2d 892). The same is true with respect to threshold crime scene inquiries designed not to elicit inculpatory responses but to clarify the situation with which the investigating officers are presented (see, People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843,...