People v. Young

• Decision Date: 16 September 1985
• Citation: 113 A.D.2d 852,493 N.Y.S.2d 516
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dwayne YOUNG, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 516

493 N.Y.S.2d 516

113 A.D.2d 852

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dwayne YOUNG, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Sept. 16, 1985.

Theodore T. Jones, Jr., Brooklyn, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Peter A. Weinstein and Leonard Joblove, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 26, 1980, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life to run concurrent with a term of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress certain pretrial statements.

Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing defendant's sentence on the charge of murder in the second degree from an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

We conclude that the evidence on the record supports the conclusion of the Judge presiding at the suppression hearing that the statements defendant made to a detective at the police station, acknowledging his participation in the attempted robbery and murder, are admissible, as they did not result from a custodial interrogation. Defendant testified that he went to the police station voluntarily to seek help, as he had heard rumors that people with guns were looking for him. There is no evidence that defendant was physically restrained in any way or otherwise treated in such a manner as to cause a reasonable individual, innocent of any crime, in his position, to believe that he was "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2256, 60 L.Ed.2d 824; People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172, cert. denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89). Nor is a custodial situation created, under the circumstances at bar, by the facts that defendant was only 16 years of age at the time the crime was committed, that the interview with the detective occurred in the police station and that the detective informed defendant, prior to eliciting his statement, that he was the target of a murder investigation (see, California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3519, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275; Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714; Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213, 401 N.Y.S.2d 52, 371 N.E.2d 814; People v. Yukl, supra, 25 N.Y.2d, at p. 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172; People v. Rodney P. [Anonymous], 21 N.Y.2d 1, 286 N.Y.S.2d 225, 233 N.E.2d 255; People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907, 480 N.Y.S.2d 518; People v. Bertolo, 102 A.D.2d 193, 478 N.Y.S.2d 19, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 111, 490 N.Y.S.2d 475, 480 N.E.2d 61; People v. Winchell, 98 A.D.2d 838, 470 N.Y.S.2d 835, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 826, 486 N.Y.S.2d 930, 476 N.E.2d 329; People v. Torres, 97 A.D.2d 802, 468 N.Y.S.2d 546). We see no reason to overturn the determination of the Judge presiding at the suppression hearing, who credited the testimony of the detective that defendant did not ask to make any telephone calls to his parents' home during the...