People v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fischer

159 A.D.2d 953, 552 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 953 (People v. Fischer) 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. Fischer, 159 A.D.2d 953, 552 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant and two others were arrested in connection with the death of James Flake and transported to the Allegany State Police barracks for questioning. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). He answered affirmatively when asked if he understood each warning. Defendant, however, "made no answer” to the officers’ inquiries regarding whether he would speak to them about the incident. All questioning ceased. A short time later, defendant was taken to an office where codefendant Harmon was being interviewed. Prior to defendant’s entrance, Harmon had disclosed the location of "chuka sticks” used in the crime. Investigators Reed and Jackson left to retrieve the "chuka sticks”. When Reed returned with the sticks, Harmon, in defendant’s presence, identified them. Defendant and Investigators Reed and Woods went to another room. Defendant was again given Miranda warnings. He told the investigators he would speak to them without an attorney present. Defendant thereafter signed a typed inculpatory statement. Defendant contends that the hearing court should have suppressed his statement. We disagree.

In our view, the suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement. Although he initially invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent, the investigating officers were not, several hours later, and after giving fresh Miranda warnings, precluded from interrogating defendant and eliciting a statement. Here, the inculpatory statement was not the product of "continued importunity or coercive interrogation in the guise of a request for reconsideration” (People v Gary, 31 NY2d 68, 70). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Marshall, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant and two others were arrested in connection with the death of James Flake and transported to the Allegany State Police barracks for questioning. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). He answered affirmatively when asked if he understood each warning. Defendant, however, "made no answer” to the officers’ inquiries regarding whether he would speak to them about the incident. All questioning ceased. A short time later, defendant was taken to an office where codefendant Harmon was being interviewed. Prior to defendant’s entrance, Harmon had disclosed the location of "chuka sticks” used in the crime. Investigators Reed and Jackson left to retrieve the "chuka sticks”. When Reed returned with the sticks, Harmon, in defendant’s presence, identified them. Defendant and Investigators Reed and Woods went to another room. Defendant was again given Miranda warnings. He told the investigators he would speak to them without an attorney present. Defendant thereafter signed a typed inculpatory statement. Defendant contends that the hearing court should have suppressed his statement. We disagree.

In our view, the suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement. Although he initially invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent, the investigating officers were not, several hours later, and after giving fresh Miranda warnings, precluded from interrogating defendant and eliciting a statement. Here, the inculpatory statement was not the product of "continued importunity or coercive interrogation in the guise of a request for reconsideration” (People v Gary, 31 NY2d 68, 70). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Marshall, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 953, 552 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fischer-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack