People v. Cancel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cancel

126 A.D.3d 496, 5 N.Y.S.3d 86, 2015 NY Slip Op 01992, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2001

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

Docket14491 4542/08

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 496 (People v. Cancel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cancel, 126 A.D.3d 496, 5 N.Y.S.3d 86, 2015 NY Slip Op 01992, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. While under arrest in Queens for petit larceny, defendant spontaneously declared that he had committed a murder. The arresting officer did not ask defendant a single question. Instead, the officer made declarative comments, expressing disbelief and essentially urging defendant to stop talking about the murder. Defendant nevertheless continued his unprompted description of the murder, until detectives were finally notified.

The lack of Miranda warnings did not warrant suppression of defendant’s statements to the arresting officer in Queens. The officer’s expressions of disbelief did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294-295 [1980]).

In any event, the statements defendant made after Miranda warnings were attenuated from the statements to the arresting officer, as well as from certain statements made to Queens detectives, which the court suppressed (see People v White, 10 NY3d 286, 291 [2008], cert denied 555 US 897 [2008]; People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130-131 [2005]). To the extent there was a chain of events, it clearly began with defendant’s insistence on boasting of a murder, to an unwilling listener. Furthermore, there was a pronounced break between defendant’s statements in Queens, and his later statements to Manhattan detectives and to an Assistant District Attorney. There was a passage of more than two hours, and the questioning was conducted by different interrogators at a different location.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and *497 find them, to be without merit.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. While under arrest in Queens for petit larceny, defendant spontaneously declared that he had committed a murder. The arresting officer did not ask defendant a single question. Instead, the officer made declarative comments, expressing disbelief and essentially urging defendant to stop talking about the murder. Defendant nevertheless continued his unprompted description of the murder, until detectives were finally notified.

The lack of Miranda warnings did not warrant suppression of defendant’s statements to the arresting officer in Queens. The officer’s expressions of disbelief did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294-295 [1980]).

In any event, the statements defendant made after Miranda warnings were attenuated from the statements to the arresting officer, as well as from certain statements made to Queens detectives, which the court suppressed (see People v White, 10 NY3d 286, 291 [2008], cert denied 555 US 897 [2008]; People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130-131 [2005]). To the extent there was a chain of events, it clearly began with defendant’s insistence on boasting of a murder, to an unwilling listener. Furthermore, there was a pronounced break between defendant’s statements in Queens, and his later statements to Manhattan detectives and to an Assistant District Attorney. There was a passage of more than two hours, and the questioning was conducted by different interrogators at a different location.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and *497 find them, to be without merit.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 496, 5 N.Y.S.3d 86, 2015 NY Slip Op 01992, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cancel-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack