People v. Rodriguez

231 A.D.2d 477, 648 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9509

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 13, 1993, convicting him, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of-17 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Suppression of defendant’s videotaped statement made at 7:00 p.m. to an Assistant District Attorney was properly denied, since it followed a "definite, pronounced break” in defendant’s interrogation, such that defendant was no longer under the influence of prior questioning (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115). The substantive questioning of defendant began at noon, with the aid of a Spanish-speaking officer, and, after defendant made certain admissions, he was read and waived his Miranda rights. During the next few hours, defendant made a full confession to the assigned detective which was reduced to writing, and signed by defendant at 3:45 p.m. Between that time and 5:30 p.m., with at least one intervening break, the statement was reviewed by a Spanish interpreter, and subsequently defendant, and it was translated into English by the Spanish-speaking officer. Between 5:30 and 7:00 p.m., defendant was left undisturbed and was offered something to eat and drink. In light of this one and one-half hour break in the questioning (see, People v Dunkley, 200 AD2d 499, lv denied 83 NY2d 871; People v Vientos, 164 AD2d 122, 127, affd 79 NY2d 771; cf., People v Robertson, 133 AD2d 355), the introduction of a new interrogator (People v Vientos, supra), the re-administration of new Miranda warnings (see, People v Nova, 198 AD2d 193, 195, lv denied 83 NY2d 808), and the fact that the prosecutor made no mention of the prior statements during the videotaping (cf., People v Jones, 87 AD2d 761, 763), we find suppression was properly denied. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.