From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

KA 01-01491

March 21, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of Livingston County Court (Alonzo, J.), entered June 25, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts).

CHRISTOPHER J. LARAGY, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THOMAS E. MORAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (ERIC R. SCHIENER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., PINE, HURLBUTT, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree (see Penal Law § 110.00, 125.25) arising from his attack on two of his teenage cousins using a baseball bat and a pair of scissors. Defendant contends that he did not understand the Miranda warnings given to him by the police and that County Court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements to the police in which he admitted that he intended to rape and kill both girls. That contention is without merit. A review of the totality of the circumstances in this case establishes that defendant's statements to the police were voluntarily made (see People v. Martinez, 276 A.D.2d 645, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 966; see generally People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38). "It is apparent that defendant understood the Miranda warnings and, with such understanding, freely chose to answer the questions asked by the police" (People v. Benton, 158 A.D.2d 987, 987, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 963). The testimony of defendant at the Huntley hearing that he did not understand the Miranda warnings when they were read to him presented a credibility issue for the suppression court to resolve, and we see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determination (see People v. White [Ronald], 300 A.D.2d 1149 [Dec. 30, 2002]). Considering the heinous nature of the crimes, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Young

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KYLE YOUNG…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 21, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

People v. Lee

The court found the detective's testimony to be credible, and found the defendant's testimony not to be…

People v. Rodriguez

Defendant further contends that a knapsack and its contents as well as a hat were illegally seized without a…