| People v Rhodes |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03138 [83 AD3d 1287] |
| April 21, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Rhodes,Also Known as Humzer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Anna Remet, Special Prosecutor, Kingston, for respondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.),rendered June 26, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the firstdegree and rape in the third degree.
In the wake of allegations that defendant had raped a woman, he was interviewed byinvestigators and stated that he had engaged in sex with the victim, although he maintained thatsuch was consensual. Defendant was subsequently charged in an indictment with variousoffenses and, following a Huntley hearing, County Court denied his motion to suppressthe statements. He was convicted of rape in the first degree and rape in the third degree after ajury trial and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to be followed by five yearsof postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that he was subjected to custodialinterrogation prior to the administration of Miranda warnings and that, as a result, hisstatements to investigators should have been suppressed.
We disagree and affirm. A defendant is subjected "to custodial interrogation when, given thecircumstances of the questioning, 'a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would havebelieved that he or she was not free to leave' " (People v Hook, 80 AD3d 881, 882 [2011], quoting People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122,129 [2005]; see People v Richards,78 AD3d 1221, 1224 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 955 [2010]). Here, on the afternoonfollowing the rape, [*2]four State Police investigators founddefendant and a witness at their workplace. Defendant voluntarily accompanied two of them tothe State Police barracks to be interviewed—acceding to the investigators' preference thatthey travel together in so doing—and the three traveled in an unmarked vehicle. He wasnot restrained in any way during the 10-to-15-minute ride, and the three spoke briefly aboutsporting events and his whereabouts the night before, at which time defendant stated that he hadbeen with the victim and had engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
It is also true that the investigators initially expressed interest in an assault allegedlyperpetrated by the witness the night before, rather than the rape allegedly committed bydefendant. Even with that deception, however, a reasonable and innocent person in defendant'sposition would not have believed that he or she was in custody while traveling to the barracks, as"[p]olice suspicion of which defendant was unaware could not render [an] otherwise neutralenvironment coercive" (People v Pugliese, 26 NY2d 478, 480 [1970]; see People v DeJesus, 45 AD3d986, 986 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1032 [2008]; People v Tankleff, 199AD2d 550, 552-553 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 992 [1994]). The record supports CountyCourt's determination that defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation during the rideto the barracks (see People vMurphy, 43 AD3d 1276, 1276-1277 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1008 [2007];People v Molina, 248 AD2d 489, 490 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 902 [1998];People v Flecha, 195 AD2d 1052, 1052-1053 [1993]). Inasmuch as defendant wasMirandized immediately upon his arrival at the barracks and raises no issues with regard to thequestioning there, we are satisfied that County Court properly denied his motion to suppress.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.