From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bongiorno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.)


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's car struck another vehicle, killing its two occupants. We agree with the Supreme Court that the inculpatory statements made by the defendant at the hospital were admissible at trial since they were not the product of custodial interrogation but were elicited in the course of the police department's accident investigation ( see, People v. Phinney, 22 N.Y.2d 288; People v. Stackhouse, 160 A.D.2d 822). A detective read questions from the police department's standard accident investigation form while the defendant sat, clothed and unrestrained, on a hospital bed near the emergency room ( see, People v. Bowen, 229 A.D.2d 964; People v. Ripic, 182 A.D.2d 226). Although understandably upset, the defendant was coherent and not seriously injured and, in fact, was released from the hospital soon after the questioning. Moreover, the defendant, having been involved in a fatal automobile accident, should have expected that she would be questioned as part of a police investigation ( see, People v. Tankleff, 199 A.D.2d 550).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the detective's additional question regarding the defendant's drug usage, based on information just received from her mother, did not transform the questioning into custodial interrogation but was pertinent to the accident investigation as well as the defendant's ability to answer the investigatory questions accurately. The hearing evidence further demonstrated that the detective ceased any questioning and administered Miranda warnings as soon as the defendant stated that she had purchased and smoked phencyclidine (hereinafter PCP) just prior to the accident. The detective's subsequent search of the defendant's purse and jacket, which produced a packet of PCP and a pipe, were thus incident to a lawful arrest. In any event, the evidence showed that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search, by stating "go ahead" and emptying the contents of her purse on the bed ( see, People v. Alvaranga, 84 N.Y.2d 985), and to the taking of the blood sample, the testing of which revealed the presence of PCP ( see, People v. Delosh, 195 A.D.2d 769; People v. Bowen, supra; People v. Chahis, 172 A.D.2d 552).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bongiorno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Bongiorno

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LISA BONGIORNO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 861

Citing Cases

People v. Webster

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a…

People v. Velazquez

Then, the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car and offered the PBT. The defendant consented to…