People v. Wisdom, 2014–09908

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 164 A.D.3d 928,82 N.Y.S.3d 97
• Decision Date: 29 August 2018
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Atara WISDOM, Appellant.
• Docket Number: Ind.No. 6615/12,2014–09908

164 A.D.3d 928
82 N.Y.S.3d 97

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Atara WISDOM, Appellant.

2014–09908
Ind.No. 6615/12

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

Argued—March 1, 2018
August 29, 2018

82 N.Y.S.3d 98

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Albert Tomei, J.), rendered October 8, 2014, convicting her of murder in the second 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 a statement made by her to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt and to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 35.15[2][b] ; 125.25[1] ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny suppression of an oral statement the defendant made to police on the morning of July 26, 2012. After waiving her Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), the defendant freely and voluntarily made a videotaped statement at the police station on July 25, 2012, beginning at approximately 9:00 p.m. The interview ended after approximately 30 minutes, not because the defendant unequivocally invoked her right to remain silent, but rather, to allow her to compose herself. The idea for ending the interview and stopping the videotape was that of the Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter ADA) conducting the interview. The ADA said, "Let's stop the tape for now," and "there will be no further questions until we resume the tape." Questioning resumed the following morning at approximately 10:00 a.m., at which time the defendant was reminded of the rights she had been read the previous day, and the defendant agreed to continue answering more questions. During that session, the defendant stated that after she stabbed the victim, she took the victim's cell phone, keys, and wallet. The wallet contained the victim's welfare benefit card, but the defendant specifically denied ever using the card.

The defendant's morning statement was properly admitted at trial. Had the defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked her right to remain silent the previous evening, the request would have had to be scrupulously honored (see id. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ;

82 N.Y.S.3d 99

People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322, 482 N.Y.S.2d 237, 472 N.E.2d 13 ), and further interrogation would have had to cease (see People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 70, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 286 N.E.2d 263 ). Under such circumstances, further inquiry can be made,...