Summary
In Baker, 208 A.D.2d at 758, 617 N.Y.S.2d 798, the Second Department held that because "the record indicate[d] that the defendant remained in the interview room during his detention, and that approximately eight hours passed from the time he was issued Miranda rights and his 9:10 P.M. statement," additional warnings were unnecessary.
Summary of this case from People v. WhiteOpinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his written statement given at 9:10 P.M. was properly admitted into evidence. It is well settled that "where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody remained continuous" (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, cert denied 472 U.S. 1021). Here, the record indicates that the defendant remained in the interview room during his detention, and that approximately eight hours passed from the time he was issued Miranda rights and his 9:10 P.M. statement. Therefore, additional warnings were unnecessary (see, e.g., People v. Stanton, 162 A.D.2d 987; People v Williams, 137 A.D.2d 568; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20; People v Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663; People v. Manley, 40 A.D.2d 907). Furthermore, based on the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v. Fischl, 182 A.D.2d 699), including the duration and conditions of detention, the attitude of the police toward the defendant, and the age, physical state and mental state of the defendant (see, People v McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605; People v. Ross, 134 A.D.2d 298), the defendant's 9:10 P.M. statement was voluntarily given. The defendant had only been detained for approximately eight hours before making his first inculpatory statement. In addition, the defendant was given dinner and permitted to use the toilet facilities. Further, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was subjected to intimidation or coercion by the police. Finally, the record indicates that the defendant was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol while he was detained.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the medical examiner's prior testimony regarding the decedent's autopsy, given in a civil proceeding conducted in the Family Court, constituted Rosario material (see, People v. Washington, 196 A.D.2d 346). Therefore, the People's failure to produce this testimony did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852) or without merit. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.