| People v Valentin |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04223 [118 AD3d 823] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Angel Valentin, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard B.Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(D'Emic, J.), rendered June 15, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree andmanslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings 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 evidence at the suppression hearing revealed that when the police arrived at thescene in response to a report of "a dispute with a knife," they found two woundedmen—the defendant and Wilfredo Suarez—and the body of Iris Cuadrado.The police handcuffed both men. After Emergency Medical Services technicians arrived,a police officer asked the defendant "what happened," and the defendant gave aninculpatory response (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]). Later, afterbeing advised of his rights, the defendant gave two additional inculpatory statements. Onappeal, the defendant contends that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress thesethree statements. Specifically, he contends that his initial statement to the police was theproduct of a custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of Mirandawarnings, and that his two subsequent statements were tainted by that initial, unwarnedstatement.
Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is subjected to "custodialinterrogation," which, by definition, entails both "custody" and "interrogation" (seePeople v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33 [1976]; People v Kittell, 135 AD2d1021, 1022 [1987]; People v Johnson, 64 AD2d 907, 909 [1978], affd 48NY2d 674 [1979]). Here, the police officer's single question did not amount tointerrogation, but was merely an attempt to clarify the situation confronting the police(see People v Huffman, 41 NY2d at 34; People v Baker, 27 AD3d 887, 888 [2006]; People vLuna, 164 AD2d 870, 871 [1990]; cf. People v Rifkin, 289 AD2d 262,262-263 [2001]; People v Soto, 183 AD2d 926 [1992]). Accordingly, thedefendant's response to that single question was not the product of an unwarned custodialinterrogation, and it did not taint the defendant's subsequent statements. Consequently,the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statements.
The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to submit [*2]manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law§ 125.15 [1]), as a lesser-included offense of the count charging him withthe intentional murder of Iris Cuadrado (see CPL 300.50; Penal Law§ 125.25 [1]; People v Greene, 87 AD3d 551, 551 [2011]). Although thedefendant's own testimony, viewed in isolation, might have supported submission of therequested lesser offense, that testimony was conclusively refuted by the evidenceregarding the number, depth, and severity of Cuadrado's wounds (see People vRivera, 23 NY3d 112, 121 [2014]). Thus, even viewing the evidencein the light most favorable to the defendant, as we must, there simply was no reasonableview of it that the defendant recklessly, and not intentionally, caused Cuadrado's death(see CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Rivera, 23 NY3d at � , 2014 NY Slip Op 02379, *10-11). Accordingly, the trial court properlyrefused to submit manslaughter in the second degree to the jury (see People vRivera, 23 NY3d at � , 2014 NY Slip Op 02379, *10-11; People v Lopez, 72 AD3d 593, 593 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.