Opinion
2011-11277, Ind. No. 2271/10.
09-30-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James E. CURRIE, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell and Kevin C. King of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell and Kevin C. King of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered November 28, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of physical evidence and the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him based upon the contents of a police dispatcher's radio broadcast providing a general description of the perpetrator, the proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, and the short passage of time between the commission of the crime and the observation of the defendant (see People v. Palmer, 84 A.D.3d 1414, 1414, 923 N.Y.S.2d 907 ; People v. Holland, 4 A.D.3d 375, 376, 770 N.Y.S.2d 872 ). Further, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant upon learning from a computer check that there was an open warrant for his arrest in North Carolina (see People v. Gary, 19 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 796 N.Y.S.2d 820 ; see generally
People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppress physical evidence.
The Supreme Court also properly declined to suppress the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials after being informed of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Williams, 106 A.D.3d 759, 760, 963 N.Y.S.2d 729 ). Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's post–Miranda statements were voluntarily made (see People v. Lee, 105 A.D.3d 870, 871, 962 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; People v. DeCampoamor, 91 A.D.3d 669, 936 N.Y.S.2d 256 ), and he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to making the statements (see People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 289–290, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 ). Further, the defendant's post–Miranda statements were not tainted by his earlier pre–Miranda statements, as the first interrogation was very brief, and the defendant made no inculpatory statements (see People v. White, 10 N.Y.3d 286, 291–292, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534, 886 N.E.2d 156 ). Moreover, the time differential of approximately one hour between the defendant's pre–Miranda statements and his post–Miranda inculpatory statements was sufficiently pronounced to dissipate the taint of the Miranda violation (see id. at 292, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534, 886 N.E.2d 156 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial testimony of the arresting officer regarding a description of one of the suspects did not constitute inadmissible hearsay, as it was admitted to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v. Speaks, 124 A.D.3d 689, 1 N.Y.S.3d 257, lv. granted 24 N.Y.3d 1222, 4 N.Y.S.3d 610, 28 N.E.3d 46 ; People v. Walker, 70 A.D.3d 870, 894 N.Y.S.2d 156 ). The defendant's contention that the testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the testimony on that ground (see People v. Walker,
70 A.D.3d at 871, 894 N.Y.S.2d 156 ). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Rahman, 119 A.D.3d 820, 989 N.Y.S.2d 306 ).
The defendant's contentions with respect to the propriety of the prosecutor's comments in summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Mamadou, 129 A.D.3d 993, 13 N.Y.S.3d 440 ). In any event, the comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and do not warrant reversal (see People v. Alleyne, 128 A.D.3d 715, 6 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Smith, 127 A.D.3d 790, 6 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; People v. Edwards, 63 A.D.3d 855, 882 N.Y.S.2d 684 ).