Opinion
2011-10-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Felipe ARROYO, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sara Gurwitch of counsel), for appellant.Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Nancy D. Killian of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sara Gurwitch of counsel), for appellant.Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Nancy D. Killian of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), rendered April 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statement he made to a detective, prior to any Miranda warnings, as he was being placed under arrest. During this process of moving defendant from an interview room to a cell, the detective asked defendant an innocuous question about whether he understood
what was happening; in context, this question did not reasonably appear to have anything to do with the facts of the case. Thus, the detective's question was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response ( see People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862 [1982]; People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294–295, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405 [1980] ).
The court properly admitted evidence of defendant's prior bad acts toward the victim. This evidence provided relevant background regarding the events leading up to the murder and the relationship between defendant and the victim ( see People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d 823, 827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885 [2009]; People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 [2009] ). Any error in receiving evidence of defendant's prior abuse of the victim's children was harmless.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting graphic photographs, since they were relevant to the issues of intent and identity, and they tended to corroborate the testimony of several witnesses ( see People v. Byrd, 303 A.D.2d 184, 756 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 641, 769 N.Y.S.2d 207, 801 N.E.2d 428 [2003] ). Among other things, the photos showed that the victim was killed in a manner that precisely matched defendant's threats against her.
After conducting a hearing pursuant to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 [1964], the court properly received evidence of defendant's admissions to a fellow inmate. The witness's involvement in other cases did not make him a government agent in this case ( see People v. Fernandez, 23 A.D.3d 317, 806 N.Y.S.2d 476 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 812, 812 N.Y.S.2d 452, 845 N.E.2d 1283 [2006] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.