Opinion
Ind. No. 22-70095
08-01-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. CARLTON NAUGHTON, Defendant.
Brian Bendish Assistant District Attorney Westchester County Christina T. Hall, Esq. Law Office of Christina T. Hall & Associates Attorney for Defendant
Unpublished Opinion
Brian Bendish Assistant District Attorney Westchester County
Christina T. Hall, Esq. Law Office of Christina T. Hall & Associates Attorney for Defendant
DECISION AND ORDER
ROBERT A. NEARY, JUSTICE
The following constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the Court:
The defendant has been indicted for the crimes of Manslaughter in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. It is alleged that on or about August 27, 2021, the defendant did cause the death of an individual in the course of trying to injure that person.
The defendant claiming to be aggrieved by the improper or unlawful acquisition of evidence has moved to suppress statements allegedly made by him on August 27, 2021 at. Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital and later at Mount Vernon Police Headquarters on the ground that the statements were involuntary made without the benefit of the Miranda warnings.
The defendant further seeks suppression of certain items of physical evidence contending they were seized pursuant to an unlawful arrest that lacked probable cause.
The People must establish the voluntariness of the statements attributed to the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before they are admissible at trial.
Before any physical evidence seized incident to arrest may be suppressed, the defendant must establish the illegality of his arrest by a preponderance of the evidence. The People must preliminarily demonstrate that the arrest of the defendant was based upon reasonable and probable cause.
By decision of this Court dated April 27, 2022, pre-trial Huntley, Dunaway, Mapp and Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearings were ordered. On July 29, 2022, a combined hearing was held to address the Huntley, Dunaway, and Mapp issues. The Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing was adjourned until August 1, 2022.
At the hearing, the People called as witnesses Mount Vernon Police Department Detective Michael Barnes and Detective Natasha Cheron. The Court finds the testimony of the People witnesses to be candid, plausible and fully credible. The defense presented no witnesses and offered no evidence.
This Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
On August 27, 2021 at about 2:25 P.M., Mount Vernon Detective Michael Barnes was at his desk inside Mount Vernon Police Headquarters when he overheard a police radio transmission reporting a stabbing near 45 East 3rd Street. Detective Barnes relocated to a second office nearby which was equipped with Real Time Crime (TRC) video surveillance monitors that recorded activities at various locations throughout the City. The detective accessed the two (2) RTC cameras in the vicinity of the East 3rd Street address and observed on camera two (2) males engaged in an altercation. Detective Barnes reviewed the tape numerous times. One male appeared to be of stocky build with a dark tee shirt, dark pants and white sneakers. The second male wore red pants. Detective Barnes observed the male with dark pants appear to stab the man in the red pants before departing the scene in a City of Mount Vernon truck bearing license plate "W-2." Detective Barnes relayed the above information to his supervisor, Sergeant Fegan, who instructed him to go to the Mount Vernon City Water Department facility on nearby Macquesten Parkway. Once at the Water Department facility, Detective Barnes located the city truck with plate "W-2." Looking inside he observed blood on an arm rest. Detective Barnes reported these findings to Detective Sergeant Fegan, then safe guarded the vehicle pending arrival of members of the Crime Scene Unit.
While Detective Barnes was reviewing the RTC footage, Detective Natasha Cheron was dispatched to the scene near 45 East 3rd Street where among other things she observed blood on the sidewalk. She learned that Police Officer Cerqua had accompanied an individual to a local hospital who had sustained a stab wound. Sergeant Fegan assigned Detective Cheron to go the hospital and interview that person. Once at the hospital, Detective Cheron learned the individual whom Police Officer Cerqua had accompanied to the hospital had died. She also learned a second person, the defendant, was in the Emergency Room suffering from a slashing-type facial wound. The defendant was shirtless but wearing dark sweat pants with white sneakers. When Detective Cheron inquired of the defendant about how he was injured, he informed her in substance that he was driving his water department truck near Union Avenue and 3rd Street in Mount Vernon when his phone fell and, in the course of retrieving it, an unknown person slashed him in the face while he was inside his truck. Detective Cheron left the defendant unguarded in the Emergency Room while she went to another section of the hospital to interview the defendant's wife.
About this time, Detective Cheron spoke to Sergeant Fegan over the phone. He informed her he had personally watched the RTC video, and that the defendant stabbed the other individual. Sergeant Fegan directed Detective Cheron to place the defendant under arrest. Detective Cheron then obtained a swab of the defendant's injury and collected the defendant's white sneakers, blue sweat pants, blue shirt and white socks which she turned over to a fellow detective to be placed into evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Dunaway Issue:
New York Courts have recognized that an arrest need not be supported by information and knowledge that at the time points directly to the defendant's guilt beyond a . reasonable doubt and excludes all possibility of innocence. Rather probable cause rest on probabilities, not certainty. [See People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417].
For probable cause to exist, the conclusion must be one that a reasonable person possessing the same expertise, training and experience as the arresting officer would reach. [See People v. Silas, 220 A.D.2d 467]. It is the synthesis of all the information gleaned by the detective, in this case, Detective Sergeant Fegan, from any number of sources that links the defendant to the alleged crime.
Huntley Issue:
Before an individual need be advised of his constitutional rights under Miranda, two (2) factors must exist: (1) interrogation and (2) custody. In this case neither factor was present. Detective Cheron's simple inquiry when she first encountered the defendant in the Emergency Room about "what happened?" was investigatory in nature and not an interrogation. It clearly was an effort to clarity an evolving situation. In addition, the defendant was not in custody when the Detective posed the question that evoked his response about being slashed in his truck by an unknown assailant. The defendant was left unattended in the Emergency Room after making his remarks. He was never restrained, nor was the detective's question intended to elicit an incriminating statement or to trick the defendant in any way. Applying the Yuki (25 N.Y.2d 585) standard makes it clear, that no reasonable person innocent of any crime, would have believed himself to be in custody.
Fellow Officer Rule:
A police witness at a suppression hearing may establish probable cause by personal knowledge, as well as by information supplied by fellow officers (see People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 491) and where as here, the knowledge of the imparting officer was based on his first hand observations, the People were not required to produce that officer at the suppression hearing. [See People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416, 420)
In Ketcham, the arresting officer was entitled to rely on information from his sergeant, received in turn from an undercover officer, that a person meeting the defendant's description was a participant in a drug sale.
Here Sergeant Fegan personally informed Detective Cheron that he observed a video recording depicting an individual matching the defendant stabbing another individual shortly before Detective Cheron encountered the defendant at the hospital suffering from a slashing he admitted to receiving that same afternoon.
Conclusion;
Mapp: The defendant's clothing retrieved from the hospital is admissible since it was seized incident to a lawful arrest. The defendant failed to establish the illegality of his arrest by a » . preponderance of the evidence. The People have preliminarily demonstrated the defendant's arrest was based on reasonable and probable cause.
Huntley. The People have established by reasonable doubt that the defendant's statement at the hospital on August 27, 2021 was freely and voluntarily made.
Dunaway. The police had abundant reasonable and probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon Sergeant Fegan's observations relayed to Detective Cheron.
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.