Opinion
666 KA 17–00993
06-08-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ramel BELL–SCOTT, Defendant–Respondent.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress defendant's statements is denied, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
Memorandum: The People appeal from an order granting that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress oral statements that he made to Syracuse Police detectives. We agree with the People that Supreme Court erred in suppressing those statements, and we therefore reverse the order, deny that part of the omnibus motion seeking suppression of defendant's statements and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
Contrary to the court's conclusion, the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required (see generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 [1966] ). "In determining whether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, ‘[t]he test is not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant's position’ " ( People v. Kelley, 91 A.D.3d 1318, 1318, 937 N.Y.S.2d 514 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 963, 950 N.Y.S.2d 115, 973 N.E.2d 213 [2012], quoting People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 [1969], cert denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89 [1970] ). We reject defendant's contention that the People failed to meet their "burden of showing that [he] voluntarily went to the [detectives' office] where he allegedly made the inculpatory statements" ( People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 883, 884, 587 N.Y.S.2d 607, 600 N.E.2d 238 [1992] ). Indeed, the People "properly demonstrated by unchallenged hearsay testimony" that defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the detectives' office for questioning and, inasmuch as defendant did not dispute that fact in either his motion papers or his arguments on the motion, that testimony was sufficient to sustain the People's burden ( People v. Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 564, 564, 591 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2d Dept. 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 892, 597 N.Y.S.2d 953, 613 N.E.2d 985 [1993] ; see generally People v. Norman, 304 A.D.2d 405, 405, 757 N.Y.S.2d 294 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 623, 767 N.Y.S.2d 406, 799 N.E.2d 629 [2003] ). We further conclude that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements because he was informed that he was not under arrest and that he would be going home that day, he was not handcuffed, he was permitted to leave the interview room several times, he never asked to leave the office nor was he told that he could not leave, and he was not arrested that day (see People v. Weakfall, 108 A.D.3d 1115, 1115–1116, 969 N.Y.S.2d 655 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1078, 974 N.Y.S.2d 327, 997 N.E.2d 152 [2013] ; see also People v. Wilbert, 192 A.D.2d 1109, 1109–1110, 596 N.Y.S.2d 258 [4th Dept. 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1082, 601 N.Y.S.2d 602, 619 N.E.2d 680 [1993] ; People v. Anderson, 145 A.D.2d 939, 939–940, 536 N.Y.S.2d 616 [4th Dept. 1988], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 974, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 538 N.E.2d 360 [1989] ).The People's further contention that the court erred in denying their request to reopen the hearing is academic in light of our determination.