From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1992
179 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 21, 1992

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no reason to disturb the hearing court's findings that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived her Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and voluntarily confessed to the crime. In so finding, the hearing court specifically rejected the testimony of the defendant and credited the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is well settled that issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses and its determination should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Eismann, 158 A.D.2d 537). We reject the defendant's contentions that she was subject to continuous interrogation so as to render the Miranda warnings ineffective (see, People v Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112), or that the statements made by her at the station house were involuntarily given on constraint of her first statement, under the so-called "cat-out-of-the-bag" theory (see, People v Tanner, 30 N.Y.2d 102, 106-107). The statements made by the defendant at the scene of the crime were exculpatory in nature. In any event they were made in response to investigative inquiries, and were not the result of custodial interrogation (see, People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891; People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29).

Furthermore, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty in the presence of her counsel, after the court had fully advised her of her rights, had apprised her of the consequences of her plea, and had elicited a factual statement from her concerning the circumstances of the charged crime (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v. Francis, 38 N.Y.2d 150, 154).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1992
179 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BEATRICE GONZALEZ…

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Stevens

The defendant stated at the Huntley hearing that his statements to the police were the product of coercion…

People v. Jackson

When a statement is made at the scene of a crime in response to investigative inquiries, that statement is…