Opinion
2013–06915 Ind.No. 770–13
03-27-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Juan Pablo ZELAYA, Appellant.
Carol E. Castillo, East Setauket, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Caren C. Manzello of counsel), for respondent.
Carol E. Castillo, East Setauket, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Caren C. Manzello of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that when a police officer arrived at the complainant's home in response to a report of a domestic incident, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why the police had been called, and the defendant gave an inculpatory response. Subsequently, after being taken to the police precinct and advised of his Miranda rights, (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), the defendant gave oral and written statements to the police. We agree with the County Court's determination that the defendant's initial pre- Miranda statement to the officer was not the product of a custodial interrogation (see People v. Paulman , 5 N.Y.3d 122, 129, 800 N.Y.S.2d 96, 833 N.E.2d 239 ; People v. Huffman , 41 N.Y.2d 29, 33–34, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353 ; People v. Valentin , 118 A.D.3d 823, 824, 987 N.Y.S.2d 227 ; People v. Hardy , 77 A.D.3d 133, 141, 907 N.Y.S.2d 244 ). We also agree with the court's determination that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived them at the precinct prior to giving his subsequent statements (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Hall , 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Brown , 113 A.D.3d 785, 785, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862 ). The evidence at the suppression hearing further demonstrated that an officer translated the Miranda rights into Spanish for the Spanish-speaking defendant and that the defendant's written statement was read back to him in Spanish before he signed and adopted the statement as his own (see People v. Mora , 57 A.D.3d 571, 572, 868 N.Y.S.2d 722 ; People v. Fabricio , 307 A.D.2d 882, 883, 763 N.Y.S.2d 619, affd 3 N.Y.3d 402, 787 N.Y.S.2d 219, 820 N.E.2d 863 ). Consequently, we agree with the court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon a prospective juror's comments and the testimony of two witnesses indicating that the defendant was incarcerated pending trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Brehon , 267 A.D.2d 318, 318, 699 N.Y.S.2d 897 ; People v. Jackson , 239 A.D.2d 433, 433). In any event, this contention is without merit. Evidence indicating that a defendant was incarcerated pending trial may impair a defendant's presumption of innocence (see People v. Jenkins , 88 N.Y.2d 948, 951, 647 N.Y.S.2d 157, 670 N.E.2d 441 ; People v. Fabregas , 130 A.D.3d 939, 940, 15 N.Y.S.3d 794 ; People v. Machicote , 251 A.D.2d 684, 684, 676 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; People v. Connor , 137 A.D.2d 546, 550, 524 N.Y.S.2d 287 ). Here, however, neither the prospective juror nor the two witnesses specifically indicated that the defendant had been incarcerated pending or during trial. Given that the jury was aware that the defendant had been handcuffed, placed into custody, and taken to the police precinct, the comments of the prospective juror and the witnesses' testimony did not suggest that the defendant remained incarcerated pending trial (see People v. Fabregas , 130 A.D.3d at 940, 15 N.Y.S.3d 794 ). Under these circumstances, the County Court was not required, sua sponte, to issue a curative instruction (see id. ; see generally People v. Guy , 93 A.D.3d 877, 879, 939 N.Y.S.2d 613 ).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in the manner in which it conducted the competency hearing for a then eight-year-old witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the court properly determined that the witness was competent to give sworn testimony (see CPL 60.20[2] ; People v. Morales , 80 N.Y.2d 450, 452–453, 591 N.Y.S.2d 825, 606 N.E.2d 953 ; People v. Ramos , 164 A.D.3d 1267, 83 N.Y.S.3d 580 ; People v. Thompson , 119 A.D.3d 966, 967, 989 N.Y.S.2d 881 ; People v. Mendoza , 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364 ).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d at 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo , 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Wragg , 26 N.Y.3d 403, 412, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600, 44 N.E.3d 898 ; People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.