| People v Williams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05664 [97 AD3d 769] |
| July 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Williams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss and AndrewR. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.),rendered March 9, 2010, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The evidence presented at thesuppression hearing established that the defendant's initial statement at the crime scene was madein response to a police officer's simple question, "what happened?", which was justified to clarifythe nature of the situation confronting the officer (see People v Santiago, 77 AD3d 422 [2010]; People v Taylor, 57 AD3d 327,328 [2008]; People v Vasquez, 2AD3d 759 [2003]). Further, the statements made by the defendant in the booking room atpolice headquarters were spontaneous and not triggered by police questioning or other conductwhich reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him (see People v Oliver, 87 AD3d1035, 1036-1037 [2011]; People vCarlton, 85 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2011]; People v Fernandes, 62 AD3d 721 [2009]). Accordingly, neitherthe defendant's statements at the crime scene nor his statements in the booking room were theproduct of custodial interrogation improperly conducted without the administration ofMiranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 [1966]). Thehearing evidence also supports the County Court's determination that despite the fact that thedefendant was suffering from a stab wound, his subsequent statements were voluntary because hewas capable of, and did in fact, intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waive his Mirandarights (see People v Legere, 81AD3d 746, 748 [2011]; People vTimmons, 54 AD3d 883, 885 [2008]; People v Braithwaite, 286 AD2d 507[2001]; People v Hughes, 280 AD2d 694, 695 [2001]).
During voir dire, several prospective jurors raised their hands when defense counsel askedwhether any of them would be unable to find the defendant not guilty if he did not testify. Afterconducting a follow-up inquiry of the entire panel, the County Court excused two prospectivejurors who indicated that they would find it difficult not to hold the defendant's failure to testify[*2]against him. Although the County Court erred by failing toobtain individual, unequivocal assurances that each of the remaining prospective jurors who hadraised their hands would be able to render a verdict based solely on the evidence adduced at trial(see People v Kenner, 8 AD3d296, 297 [2004]; People v Henriques, 307 AD2d 937 [2003]), reversal is notrequired because defense counsel declined to exercise his available peremptory challengesagainst these prospective jurors, and did not exhaust his peremptory challenges prior to thecompletion of jury selection (see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Lynch, 95 NY2d 243,248-249 [2000]; People vArguinzoni, 48 AD3d 1239, 1241 [2008]; People v Libardi, 12 AD3d 534, 535 [2004]; People vNelson, 288 AD2d 329 [2001]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony fromthe victim's mother and sister regarding his prior physical assaults upon the victim, as thetestimony was probative of the defendant's relationship with the victim and his intent to kill orinjure her (see People v Sanchez, 73AD3d 1093, 1094 [2010]; People vJames, 19 AD3d 616 [2005]), and rebutted his defense of justification (see People v Martinez, 53 AD3d508 [2008]; People vLawrence, 4 AD3d 436 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott andAustin, JJ., concur.