| People v Dasher |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06133 [109 AD3d 1125] |
| September 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vBernard Dasher, Also Known as William Dasher, Appellant. |
—[*1] Bernard Dasher, defendant-appellant pro se. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D.Valentino, J.), rendered January 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a juryverdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and two counts ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]). Wereject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress hisstatements to the police. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports thecourt's determination that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived hisMiranda rights. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record of the suppressionhearing does not establish that he was under the influence of medication at the time hewaived those rights "to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand themeaning of his statements" (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967],cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]; People v Marvin, 68 AD3d 1729, 1729 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 842 [2010]). We reject defendant's contention thatmedically-induced intoxication requires application of the police-induced intoxicationrule set forth in Schompert (19 NY2d at 305-307), and instead conclude thatmedically-induced intoxication should be evaluated under the self-intoxication standardreferenced above (see id.; see also People v Adams, 26 NY2d 129, 137[1970], cert denied 399 US 931 [1970]). Contrary to the contention of defendantin his pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that he was not denied his right to testifybefore the grand jury (seePeople v Ballard, 13 AD3d 670, 671 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 796[2005]; see also People vParker, 63 AD3d 537, 537 [2009]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Lindley,Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.