People v. Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miles

251 A.D.2d 1012, 675 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1012 (People v. Miles) 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. Miles, 251 A.D.2d 1012, 675 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) for causing serious physical injury to a friend of his ex-girlfriend. Following the assault, defendant made oral admissions and gave two written statements to the police. Although defendant initially denied kicking the victim in the head, he admitted in his second written statement that he had done so “a couple of times”.

Defendant contends that the oral statement he made to the police in which he initially denied kicking the victim in the head was improperly admitted into evidence because such statement was not contained in the People’s CPL 710.30 notice (see, People v Lane, 132 AD2d 855, 856, lv denied 70 NY2d 801). Defendant made a pretrial motion to suppress his statements, and the existence of the oral statement was revealed during the Huntley hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, County Court ruled that all statements were made voluntarily and were admissible at trial. Defendant’s motion to suppress renders the alleged deficiency in the People’s CPL 710.30 notice irrelevant (see, CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903, 904-905; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948).

Defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of several instances of prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during his cross-examination and during summation. Many of those claims are unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and the conduct of the prosecutor with respect to those that are preserved was not so egregious or prejudicial that it deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial (see generally, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401; see also, People v McMillan, 234 AD2d 1006, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1038). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) for causing serious physical injury to a friend of his ex-girlfriend. Following the assault, defendant made oral admissions and gave two written statements to the police. Although defendant initially denied kicking the victim in the head, he admitted in his second written statement that he had done so “a couple of times”.

Defendant contends that the oral statement he made to the police in which he initially denied kicking the victim in the head was improperly admitted into evidence because such statement was not contained in the People’s CPL 710.30 notice (see, People v Lane, 132 AD2d 855, 856, lv denied 70 NY2d 801). Defendant made a pretrial motion to suppress his statements, and the existence of the oral statement was revealed during the Huntley hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, County Court ruled that all statements were made voluntarily and were admissible at trial. Defendant’s motion to suppress renders the alleged deficiency in the People’s CPL 710.30 notice irrelevant (see, CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903, 904-905; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948).

Defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of several instances of prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during his cross-examination and during summation. Many of those claims are unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and the conduct of the prosecutor with respect to those that are preserved was not so egregious or prejudicial that it deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial (see generally, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401; see also, People v McMillan, 234 AD2d 1006, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1038). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1012, 675 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miles-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack