| People v Loucks |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01472 [125 AD3d 890] |
| February 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Loucks, Appellant. |
Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Greller, J.), rendered November 15, 2012, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At a hearing to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials, the Peoplehave the burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant'sstatements were voluntary (see People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35 [1977];People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) and, if applicable, that the defendantknowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his or her Miranda rights (seeMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 [1966]) prior to making the statements (seePeople v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289 [1984]).
"[W]here a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings andvoluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warningsprior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as thecustody has remained continuous" (People v Dayton, 66 AD3d 797, 798 [2009] [internalquotation marks omitted]; seePeople v Hasty, 25 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]). Here, the evidence adduced at theHuntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) failed toelucidate the circumstances of the administration of Miranda warnings to thedefendant in relation to another criminal investigation and subsequent questioning of himin the instant matter, without a repeat of the warnings, by City of Poughkeepsie PoliceDepartment Detective Karl Mannain. Accordingly, the hearing court erred in denyingthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements hemade to the detective. However, the admission of these statements at trial was harmlessbeyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt without reference tothese statements was overwhelming, and there was no reasonable possibility that theerror contributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 237 [1975]).
[*2] The defendant'scontention that the accomplice testimony adduced at trial was insufficiently corroboratedby independent evidence is without merit (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People vBreland, 83 NY2d 286, 292 [1994]; People v Gonzales, 101 AD3d 1149[2012]; People v Dailey, 86AD3d 579, 580 [2011]). The Criminal Procedure Law requires only that thecorroborative evidence "tend[s] to connect" the defendant with the commission of therelevant offense (CPL 60.22 [1]). Under that standard, "[a]ll that is necessary is toconnect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury may be reasonablysatisfied that the accomplice is telling the truth" (People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624,630 [1975]; see People v Gonzales, 101 AD3d at 1150). That standard was metin this case.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Austin,Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.