| People v Ramirez |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00993 [59 AD3d 206] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ruben Ramirez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered March 16,2006, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate termof 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of defendant's statements to a policereceptionist. Defendant, who appeared to be bleeding slightly from minor scratches, walked upto the receptionist while she was taking a break outside the police station and told her in Spanishthat he "wanted" and "needed" a lawyer. Assuming that he was a crime victim, theSpanish-speaking receptionist told defendant he was at a police station, not a law office, andasked if she could help him in any way. In response, defendant confessed to the crime, statingthat he had just shot the victim in the eye. The receptionist, concerned that defendant was armed,asked him where the weapon was, and he told her where he had discarded it.
Defendant's statement admitting the homicide was admissible regardless of whether thereceptionist could be deemed an agent of the Police Department. When he made this statement,he had not made an unequivocal request for counsel. When he said he wanted a lawyer, he wasnot being questioned about anything, and he provided no context for his reference to a lawyer; itwas not until after he admitted the homicide that the context became clear. For all thereceptionist knew, he could have been looking for help in locating a personal injury lawyer. Wenote that the receptionist was neither trained nor authorized to investigate crimes, and that one ofher duties was to help people who mistakenly came to the police station for assistance in civilmatters. In any event, even if defendant had invoked his right to counsel, his confession wasspontaneous under the standard applicable where the right to counsel has attached (seePeople v Campney, 94 NY2d 307 [1999]; People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 342[1982], cert denied 460 US 1047 [1983]). The simple question "Can I help you in anyway?" and its surrounding circumstances cannot even remotely be considered an interrogationenvironment. Even assuming that defendant's right to counsel had attached by the time thereceptionist asked him whether he had the weapon on his person, that inquiry was proper underthe public safety [*2]exception (see New York v Quarles,467 US 649, 655-656 [1984]; People v Palmer, 263 AD2d 361 [1999], lv denied93 NY2d 1024 [1999], cert denied 528 US 1051 [1999]).
After defendant was arrested, a lieutenant asked another officer, "Has this guy been tossedfor a gun," and defendant made a statement in English about his having discarded the weapon.This statement was not introduced at trial, and we reject defendant's contention that the recoveryof a revolver was the fruit of this statement. In any event, we find that this statement was alsospontaneous within the right-to-counsel context.
Defendant's complaint about an incriminating statement he subsequently made to a detectiveis unavailing because the People did not introduce that statement. We have considered andrejected defendant's remaining claims, including those concerning the physical evidence.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.