From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Collins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 26, 1989
156 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 26, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's assertion that there was no evidence adduced at the hearing to show that he waived his Miranda rights and that therefore his statements to the police should have been suppressed is contrary to the record which clearly demonstrates that the defendant was administered Miranda warnings, acknowledged that he understood them, signed the card from which they were read, and waived his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present.

In addition, the defendant's statements were neither forced nor coerced. After the defendant told the police that he normally wore eyeglasses but had inadvertently left them on a street curb two days prior to being questioned by them, the police showed him a pair of eyeglasses which they stated were found exactly where he said that he lost them. The defendant looked at them, tried them on and said he was sure "without a doubt" that they were his glasses. He was then informed that they had actually been found in the bed of the rape victim. While there was some measure of guile employed by the police in getting the defendant to admit that the eyeglasses were his, "[t]he use of a ruse does not render statements involuntary per se" (People v Burnett, 99 A.D.2d 786, 787). "[S]uch stratagems need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11). No such showing was made on the record before us.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

Finally, the defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Collins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 26, 1989
156 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Collins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOE LEE COLLINS…

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

Date published: Dec 26, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
549 N.Y.S.2d 459

Citing Cases

People v. Tankleff

However, it is also clear to us that the type of trickery employed by Detective McCready in this case was not…