People v. Del Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Del Rosario

210 A.D.2d 72, 620 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 72 (People v. Del Rosario) 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. Del Rosario, 210 A.D.2d 72, 620 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 12, 1991 convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years to 50 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly determined that defendant’s post-arrest statements made at the hospital, several hours after he had been shot twice by the police, were admissible. The officer, whom the court deemed to be a credible witness, ascertained from medical personnel that defendant’s condition had stabilized and was alert and coherent before administering the Miranda warning, after which defendant made statements now sought to be excluded. Moreover, defendant was sufficiently alert to offer an exculpatory rather than an inculpatory statement. Under the totality of these circumstances (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35), the statements were voluntarily given (see, People v Pagan, 163 AD2d 122, lv denied 76 NY2d 942). Similarly, the hearing court properly permitted the out-of-court identification of defendant by one of the complaining witnesses since the identification was made spontaneously, moments after a shootout with police, and was not the product of a police-arranged showup (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545-546).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 12, 1991 convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years to 50 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly determined that defendant’s post-arrest statements made at the hospital, several hours after he had been shot twice by the police, were admissible. The officer, whom the court deemed to be a credible witness, ascertained from medical personnel that defendant’s condition had stabilized and was alert and coherent before administering the Miranda warning, after which defendant made statements now sought to be excluded. Moreover, defendant was sufficiently alert to offer an exculpatory rather than an inculpatory statement. Under the totality of these circumstances (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35), the statements were voluntarily given (see, People v Pagan, 163 AD2d 122, lv denied 76 NY2d 942). Similarly, the hearing court properly permitted the out-of-court identification of defendant by one of the complaining witnesses since the identification was made spontaneously, moments after a shootout with police, and was not the product of a police-arranged showup (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545-546).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 72, 620 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-del-rosario-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack