Opinion
1084 KA 10-02499.
10-09-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anacin L. HYMES, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Bridget L. Field of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Bridget L. Field of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20 ). Supreme Court properly refused to suppress defendant's statement made to a police officer outside the building where a burglary in progress had been reported. Although defendant was then in custody, the officer's pre–Miranda question was a permissible threshold crime scene inquiry that did not constitute custodial interrogation (see People v. Burnett, 228 A.D.2d 788, 790, 644 N.Y.S.2d 79 ; People v. Mallory, 175 A.D.2d 623, 623–624, 572 N.Y.S.2d 267, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1013, 575 N.Y.S.2d 821, 581 N.E.2d 1067 ). When the officer asked defendant what he was doing, “it was quite possible that defendant was not the burglar, [and thus] the question [was] designed to clarify the nature of the situation confronted, rather than to coerce statements” (People v. Nesby, 161 A.D.2d 246, 247, 554 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 793, 559 N.Y.S.2d 998, 559 N.E.2d 692 ).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), is legally sufficient to establish that defendant possessed the requisite intent to commit a crime when he unlawfully entered the building (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). His “criminal intent can be inferred from his unexplained, unauthorized presence on the premises, from his actions while on the premises, and from his actions and assertions when confronted by the police” (People
v. Gates, 170 A.D.2d 971, 971–972, 566 N.Y.S.2d 137, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 922, 573 N.Y.S.2d 475, 577 N.E.2d 1067 ; see People v. Ostrander, 46 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 847 N.Y.S.2d 791 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that County Court properly curtailed the cross-examination of a prosecution witness with respect to alleged omissions of fact in her statement to a police officer on the night of the burglary. The witness testified that she did not omit any facts from her statement, but the officer did not write everything down. “[T]hus[,] there was no basis for impeachment of her trial testimony based on that statement” (People v. Hamm, 96 A.D.3d 1482, 1483, 946 N.Y.S.2d 745, affd. 21 N.Y.3d 708, 977 N.Y.S.2d 672, 999 N.E.2d 1117 ; see People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88, 350 N.Y.S.2d 369, 305 N.E.2d 461 ; People v. Ogborn, 57 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 869 N.Y.S.2d 713, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 786, 879 N.Y.S.2d 63, 906 N.E.2d 1097 ).
Finally, the court properly denied as untimely defendant's request that two persons who identified him on the night of the burglary be treated as missing witnesses by the court (see People v. Tomlin, 130 A.D.3d 1455, 1456, 12 N.Y.S.3d 740 ; People v. Williams, 94 A.D.3d 1555, 1556, 943 N.Y.S.2d 714 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.