From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 6, 1997
243 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 6, 1997

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress statements made by the defendant after he was advised of, and waived, his Miranda rights ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). Although the defendant was asked questions by an officer prior to receiving the Miranda warnings at the precinct, he was not subjected to any additional questioning during the approximately 40-45 minute period before he was advised of his rights and made oral and written statements to a detective. Therefore, those statements were admissible, as they were not the product of a continuous interrogation ( see, People v. Hawthorne, 160 A.D.2d 727; People v Armstrong, 210 A.D.2d 182). Moreover, while the defendant made a statement at the scene before he was advised of his rights, that statement was spontaneous, as the hearing court properly concluded that it was "made without apparent external cause" ( see, People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 650; People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476; People v. Simmons, 210 A.D.2d 441; People v. Quezada, 177 A.D.2d 660).

The defendant claims that the jury verdict is repugnant and was the result of an improper compromise because he was acquitted of the crime of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) despite evidence that his unapprehended accomplice displayed what appeared to be a pistol, but was convicted of robbery in the second degree under Penal Law § 160.10 (1). The defendant did not raise this issue prior to the discharge of the jury and therefore it is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Cruz, 175 A.D.2d 212; People v. Taylor, 138 A.D.2d 427). In any event, after reviewing the court's instructions to the jury, we find that the verdict is not repugnant ( see, People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695; People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1).

Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 6, 1997
243 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMEL BROWN, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 76

Citing Cases

People v. Santarelli

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress statements…