| People v Mattis |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09425 [45 AD3d 869] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SeanMattis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubortof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.),rendered March 14, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, assault in thefirst degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault inthe third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress his videotaped statement to an assistant district attorney.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement to an assistant district attorney,finding that it was sufficiently attenuated from the taint of his prior statements to lawenforcement officials. The hearing evidence established that there was a 10-hour hiatus betweenthe defendant's last statement to law enforcement officials and the videotaped statement, duringwhich hiatus he participated in lineups for approximately 1½ hours. The lineups concludedapproximately five hours before the videotaped statement was made, and that statement wasmade in a location other than that in which his prior interrogation was conducted and underquestioning by an assistant district attorney. Under these circumstances, there was a definite,pronounced break giving the defendant ample time for reflection, which was sufficient to removeany taint of his prior statements (seePeople v Vachet, 5 AD3d 700, 702 [2004]; People v Nisbett, 225 AD2d 801,802 [1996]; People v Hawthorne, 160 AD2d 727, 728-729 [1990]; People vMcIntyre, 138 AD2d 634, 636-637 [1988]; People v Miller, 137 AD2d [*2]626, 628-630).
The defendant's contention that the videotaped statement should have been suppressed as aproduct of a deliberate policy to interrogate first, obtain an unwarned statement, and then tosecure a waiver and confession, thereby easing the ability of the prosecutor to carry the burden ofproof (see Missouri v Seibert, 542 US 600 [2004]), is unpreserved for appellate reviewand, in any event, without merit (seePeople v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 134 [2005]; People v Cowell, 11 AD3d 292, 293 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Crane, J.P., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.