People v. McGriff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGriff

149 A.D.2d 952, 540 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 952 (People v. McGriff) 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. McGriff, 149 A.D.2d 952, 540 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: An investigating officer testified during direct examination that, prior to any Miranda warnings, when defendant was asked if he knew why he was in custody, defendant stated that it was “about Missy”, the victim. Defense counsel 'moved for a mistrial, claiming that he had not been provided with notice of that statement (see, CPL 710.30). The court refused to grant a mistrial and instead, granted an [953]*953alternative request to strike the testimony. The court also promptly issued an effective curative instruction. On appeal, defendant contends that the court’s refusal to grant the mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion, and that subsequent oral and written confessions should have been suppressed because they were tainted by the prior unwarned statement.

The initial oral statement was of minor importance when compared with the subsequent detailed confessions that were admitted into evidence, and we conclude that the court’s prompt and strong curative instruction was adequate to alleviate any prejudice caused by the officer’s testimony (see, People v Watson, 121 AD2d 487, 488, lv denied 68 NY2d 818; People v Celeste, 95 AD2d 961). There is no proof that defendant’s state of mind was such that his single unwarned statement committed him to the subsequent confession (see, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102; People v Holmes, 145 AD2d 908). From our review of the evidence presented at the Huntley hearing and at trial, we perceive no reason to disturb the fact finder’s determinations that the oral and written confessions were given voluntarily-

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, McLaughlin, J.—rape, first degree; burglary, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: An investigating officer testified during direct examination that, prior to any Miranda warnings, when defendant was asked if he knew why he was in custody, defendant stated that it was “about Missy”, the victim. Defense counsel 'moved for a mistrial, claiming that he had not been provided with notice of that statement (see, CPL 710.30). The court refused to grant a mistrial and instead, granted an [953]*953alternative request to strike the testimony. The court also promptly issued an effective curative instruction. On appeal, defendant contends that the court’s refusal to grant the mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion, and that subsequent oral and written confessions should have been suppressed because they were tainted by the prior unwarned statement.

The initial oral statement was of minor importance when compared with the subsequent detailed confessions that were admitted into evidence, and we conclude that the court’s prompt and strong curative instruction was adequate to alleviate any prejudice caused by the officer’s testimony (see, People v Watson, 121 AD2d 487, 488, lv denied 68 NY2d 818; People v Celeste, 95 AD2d 961). There is no proof that defendant’s state of mind was such that his single unwarned statement committed him to the subsequent confession (see, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102; People v Holmes, 145 AD2d 908). From our review of the evidence presented at the Huntley hearing and at trial, we perceive no reason to disturb the fact finder’s determinations that the oral and written confessions were given voluntarily-

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, McLaughlin, J.—rape, first degree; burglary, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 952, 540 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgriff-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack