People v. Cannady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cannady

243 A.D.2d 642, 663 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 642 (People v. Cannady) 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. Cannady, 243 A.D.2d 642, 663 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered April 25, 1995, convicting him of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree for his reckless assault upon his five-week-old daughter, who suffered brain damage as a result of the assault.

The defendant contends that his statements made to the police were the result of police deception and trickery and should have been suppressed. Before obtaining the defendant’s statements, the police informed his family that the custody of the infant would be affected by the defendant’s cooperation with [643]*643the police. The defendant has failed to show that this was deceptive or so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1; People v Darvie, 224 AD2d 442). Moreover, the conduct of the police did not render the confession involuntary (see, People v Foster, 193 AD2d 692; People v Hassell, 180 AD2d 819, 820).

The prosecutor’s participation in eliciting the defendant’s videotaped statement did not require her disqualification at trial, because the defendant failed to make a significant showing that the prosecutor’s pretrial conduct would become a material issue at trial. Nor did the defendant demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice from the prosecutor’s participation at trial (see, People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294; People v Williams, 231 AD2d 751).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered April 25, 1995, convicting him of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree for his reckless assault upon his five-week-old daughter, who suffered brain damage as a result of the assault.

The defendant contends that his statements made to the police were the result of police deception and trickery and should have been suppressed. Before obtaining the defendant’s statements, the police informed his family that the custody of the infant would be affected by the defendant’s cooperation with [643]*643the police. The defendant has failed to show that this was deceptive or so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1; People v Darvie, 224 AD2d 442). Moreover, the conduct of the police did not render the confession involuntary (see, People v Foster, 193 AD2d 692; People v Hassell, 180 AD2d 819, 820).

The prosecutor’s participation in eliciting the defendant’s videotaped statement did not require her disqualification at trial, because the defendant failed to make a significant showing that the prosecutor’s pretrial conduct would become a material issue at trial. Nor did the defendant demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice from the prosecutor’s participation at trial (see, People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294; People v Williams, 231 AD2d 751).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 642, 663 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cannady-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack