From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Schreiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 1990
159 A.D.2d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 26, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The instant charges arose out of a September 1979 incident during which the defendant, armed with a metal "angle-iron" pipe, struck Jamie Amsterdamer, thereby killing him. While the defendant was questioned by police in 1979 concerning the Amsterdamer homicide, he was not then charged with the crime.

Subsequently, in an unrelated matter, charging the defendant with attempted murder in the second degree, the defendant entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease (CPL 220.15) and he was civilly committed to the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center (hereinafter MHPC). In March of 1986, the doctors at MHPC applied for a court order, pursuant to CPL 330.20 (11), to transfer the defendant to a nonsecure facility. In the course of a court-ordered interview with a psychiatrist retained by the Queens County District Attorney's office, the defendant admitted that he had beaten Amsterdamer to death. The psychiatrist reported the defendant's statements to the District Attorney and the defendant was subsequently indicted for the Amsterdamer homicide.

That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the use of the statements made by him to the psychiatrist on the grounds that he was not given his Miranda warnings and was deprived of effective assistance of counsel was denied. In addition, the trial court denied, after a hearing, the defendant's motion in limine to suppress the statements to the psychiatrist on the additional ground that the statements were the product of hypnotic suggestion.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings nor was he deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, Ughetto v Acrish, 130 A.D.2d 12, 20; cf., Estelle v Smith, 451 U.S. 454).

Further, the trial court properly found that the defendant's statements regarding the Amsterdamer homicide were not the product of hypnotic suggestion or confabulation.

The defendant's other contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Schreiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 1990
159 A.D.2d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Schreiner

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD SCHREINER…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

People v. Turner

Clearly, not all police questioning of a person who is privately confined is "custodial interrogation". (See,…

People v. Schreiner

The hearing court denied the in limine motion, concluding that there was no proof "that anybody implanted…