| People v Currie |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 07038 [131 AD3d 1265] |
| September 30, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James E. Currie, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell andKevin C. King of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Robbins, J.), rendered November 28, 2011, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearingpursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of physical evidence andthe defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined thatthe police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him based upon the contents of apolice dispatcher's radio broadcast providing a general description of the perpetrator, theproximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, and the short passage of time betweenthe commission of the crime and the observation of the defendant (see People v Palmer, 84 AD3d1414, 1414 [2011]; Peoplev Holland, 4 AD3d 375, 376 [2004]). Further, the police had probable cause toarrest the defendant upon learning from a computer check that there was an open warrantfor his arrest in North Carolina (see People v Gary, 19 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2005]; seegenerally People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly declined to suppress physical evidence.
The Supreme Court also properly declined to suppress the defendant's statements tolaw enforcement officials after being informed of his Miranda rights (seeMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Williams, 106 AD3d 759, 760 [2013]). Basedupon the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's post-Miranda statementswere voluntarily made (seePeople v Lee, 105 AD3d 870, 871 [2013]; People v DeCampoamor, 91 AD3d 669 [2012]), and hevoluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to making the statements (seePeople v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289-290 [1984]). Further, the defendant'spost-Miranda statements were not tainted by his earlier pre-Mirandastatements, as the first interrogation was very brief, and the defendant made noinculpatory statements (seePeople v White, 10 NY3d 286, 291-292 [2008]). Moreover, the time differentialof approximately one hour between the defendant's pre-Miranda statements andhis post-Miranda inculpatory statements was sufficiently pronounced to dissipatethe taint of the Miranda violation (see id. at 292).
[*2] Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trialtestimony of the arresting officer regarding a description of one of the suspects did notconstitute inadmissible hearsay, as it was admitted to complete the narrative of eventsleading to the defendant's arrest (see People v Speaks, 124 AD3d 689 [2015], lv granted24 NY3d 1222 [2015]; People v Walker, 70 AD3d 870 [2010]). The defendant'scontention that the testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of theSixth Amendment of the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review,as the defendant did not object to the testimony on that ground (see People vWalker, 70 AD3d at 871). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Rahman, 119AD3d 820 [2014]).
The defendant's contentions with respect to the propriety of the prosecutor'scomments in summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Mamadou, 129AD3d 993 [2015]). In any event, the comments did not deprive the defendant of afair trial and do not warrant reversal (see People v Alleyne, 128 AD3d 715 [2015]; People v Smith, 127 AD3d790 [2015]; People vEdwards, 63 AD3d 855 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ.,concur.