People v. Weisbrot
| Decision Date | 17 November 1986 |
| Citation | 508 N.Y.S.2d 481,124 A.D.2d 762 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Barry WEISBROT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon, New York City (Shari J. Levitan of counsel), and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City for appellant (one brief filed).
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrew Zwerling, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered July 17, 1980, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, conspiracy in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth 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 authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified on the law, by providing that the sentences imposed on the conspiracy convictions shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the murder and burglary convictions. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his confessions should have been suppressed as the product of trickery, false promises and psychological coercion is without merit. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that defendant was not under arrest and voluntarily accompanied the police to the station house, Criminal Term properly found that the confessions were voluntary.
The hearing court found the defendant's claim that he was promised that he would be permitted to plead guilty to a lesser manslaughter charge if he cooperated was unsupported by the record and was not credible. We see no reason to disturb the court's findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses (see, People v. Giangrasso, 109 A.D.2d 750, 486 N.Y.S.2d 66), especially since the defendant never mentioned the alleged promise to the District Attorney or at the time his statements were taped. The interrogating officer's promise that the office of the District Attorney would be made aware of the defendant's cooperation, without more, is insufficient to render the statements involuntary (see, People v. Rykaczewski, 121 A.D.2d 409, 502 N.Y.S.2d 808 People v. Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269, 433 N.Y.S.2d 138). Nor does the fact that the police officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Applegate
...Once the fact of death has been proven, the identity of the deceased may be proven by circumstantial evidence (People v. Weisbrot, 124 A.D.2d 762, 762-763, 508 N.Y.S.2d 481). Here, a rational jury could have found that the testimony of the People's experts that the teeth of the body recover......
-
People v. Belgenio
...statement that "maybe perhaps we can help you" cannot be construed as a direct or an implied promise of leniency (see, People v. Weisbrot, 124 A.D.2d 762, 508 N.Y.S.2d 481; People v. Rykaczewski, 121 A.D.2d 409, 410, 502 N.Y.S.2d 808; People v. Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269, 433 N.Y.S.2d 138; see al......
-
People v. Harper
...his rights. Further, the oral inculpatory statements were not in response to any coercive questioning (see, e.g., People v. Weisbrot, 124 A.D.2d 762, 508 N.Y.S.2d 481, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 888, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 507 N.E.2d 1107; People v. Jackson, 101 A.D.2d 955, 956, 477 N.Y.S.2d 441) and......
-
People v. Bennett
...and acknowledged understanding of his Miranda rights (see, People v. Taber, 115 A.D.2d 126, 127, 495 N.Y.S.2d 529; People v. Weisbrot, 124 A.D.2d 762, 508 N.Y.S.2d 481; People v. Belgenio, 164 A.D.2d 865, 866, 559 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's other contentions are unpreserved for appellate revi......