| People v Balram |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00130 [47 AD3d 1014] |
| January 10, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LatchmanBalram, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Alfred D. Chapleau of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Richards, J.), rendered September 15, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes ofsodomy in the first degree (two counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the firstdegree, rape in the second degree (three counts), unlawful imprisonment in the first degree andendangering the welfare of a child.
Defendant and the victim (born in 1990) allegedly engaged in various sexual acts from 2002until 2005, when defendant learned that the victim informed another family member of the sexualabuse. Defendant then allegedly locked the victim and various other family members in hishome, destroyed all telephones in the house, threatened to kill everyone present and, when thefamily escaped, shot himself in the face. He was thereafter charged in an indictment withnumerous crimes and, following a jury trial, convicted of sodomy in the first degree (two counts),course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, rape in the second degree (threecounts), unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. Hewas sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 40 years. He appeals and we now affirm.
Initially, we reject defendant's argument that County Court improperly denied his motion tosuppress written statements that he made while under the influence of powerful pain-[*2]killing drugs. "While statements and admissions are properlysuppressed as involuntary where an individual is impaired by a physical condition to the extent ofundermining his ability to make a choice whether or not to make a statement, voluntariness is aquestion of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances" (People vHughes, 280 AD2d 694, 695 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 801 [2001] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v May, 263 AD2d 215, 219 [2000],lv denied 94 NY2d 950 [2000]). The testimony at the suppression hearing revealed thatdetectives went to the hospital to interview defendant after learning that there was a possibilitythat he would be discharged. Prior to the interview, the detectives asked defendant's nurses ifthey could speak with him and were told that they could, but that defendant had a difficult timetalking due to injuries from his self-inflicted gunshot wound. Instead, defendant communicatedby writing on a sheet of paper.
Nurses and an aide were present in defendant's room when the detectives arrived, and thedetectives requested that the nurses remain to provide any assistance required. Defendant wasread his Miranda rights before the detectives began questioning him. He indicated that heunderstood his rights, initialed a document setting forth those rights and agreed to talk to thedetectives. Defendant was awake and maintained eye contact with the officers; he did not dozeoff at any time during the interview, require assistance in holding the pencil or paper on which hewrote, or request an attorney and that questioning stop. The interview lasted approximately 40minutes and, in response to the officers' questions, defendant admitted that he had a sexualrelationship with the victim for approximately two years, detailed their sexual activity and statedthat he wanted to tell the victim that he was very sorry. At the close of the interview, one of thenurses signed the paper on which defendant wrote his admissions.
Although defendant apparently had been given morphine and other drugs at some point priorto the interview, we conclude that neither his physical condition nor the circumstances of theinterview rendered it involuntary, and that the People proved voluntariness beyond a reasonabledoubt (see People v Thompson, 34AD3d 931, 932-933 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; People v May,263 AD2d at 218-219; People v Morris, 245 AD2d 954, 954-955 [1997], lvdenied 91 NY2d 928 [1998]; People v Shields, 125 AD2d 863, 863-865 [1986],lv denied 69 NY2d 955 [1987]). Defendant's assertions to the contrary, as well as hisclaims that he was denied access to an attorney, did not write his admissions, was subjected to anincreasing amount of pressure and that the officers made threats, promises and lies designed toobtain a confession are unsupported by the record.
Defendant's remaining arguments require little further discussion. To the extent thatdefendant challenges the evidence as legally insufficient to support the verdict, his argument isunpreserved. Although defendant made general motions to dismiss and to set aside the verdictbased on insufficient evidence, he did not assert the specific deficiencies in the evidence nowchallenged before us; "preservation requires a detailed motion addressing the specificdeficiencies in the evidence" (People vCarter, 40 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 873, 879 [2007]; seePeople v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Riddick, 34 AD3d 923, 924-925 [2006], lv denied9 NY3d 868 [2007]). Furthermore, viewing the evidence neutrally and " 'weigh[ing] the relativeprobative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences thatmay be drawn from the testimony' " (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987][citation omitted]; see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; see generallyPeople v Cooper, 88 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1996]), we conclude that the verdict is not againstthe weight of the evidence. Defendant's remaining arguments—that he received ineffectiveassistance of [*3]counsel and that his sentence was harsh andexcessive—have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.