People v. Rankin

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Nadal

    131 A.D.3d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 17 times

    Defendant now appeals. Defendant initially asserts that County Court erred in declining to suppress his oral statements to police, as the People failed to meet their burden of “proving the voluntariness of defendant's statements beyond a reasonable doubt, including that any custodial interrogation was preceded by the administration and defendant's knowing waiver of his Miranda rights” (People v. Mattis, 108 A.D.3d 872, 874, 969 N.Y.S.2d 581 [2013], lvs. denied22 N.Y.3d 957, 977 N.Y.S.2d 188, 999 N.E.2d 553 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Rankin, 127 A.D.3d 1335, 1339, 6 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2015] ). In that regard, County Court found credible the hearing testimony of the detective who conducted the interrogation.

  2. People v. Boy

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 97182 (N.Y. 2016)

    Judge: Decision Reported Below: 3d Dept: 127 AD3d 1335 (Ulster)

  3. People v. Rankin

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 97280 (N.Y. 2016)

    Judge: Decision Reported Below: 3d Dept: 127 AD3d 1335 (Ulster)

  4. People v. Robinson

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    "A criminal defendant has both a federal and state constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him or her" (People v Bryant, 200 A.D.3d 1483, 1490 [3d Dept 2021] [citation omitted], appeal dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1158 [2022]; see People v Smart, 23 N.Y.3d 213, 219 [2014]). "The confrontation right is critical to the fairness of a trial because it ensures the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact" (People v Smart, 23 N.Y.3d at 219-220 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord People v Rankin, 127 A.D.3d 1335, 1337 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149 [2016]). Given the importance of this right, prior statements of a witness are inadmissible as evidence-in-chief unless "it has been shown that the defendant procured the witness's unavailability through violence, threats or chicanery.

  5. People v. Nelson

    156 A.D.3d 1112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 16 times

    ––––, –––N.E.3d ––––, 2017 WL 6350523 [Nov. 21, 2017] ; People v. Turner , 143 A.D.3d 566, 567, 39 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1151, 52 N.Y.S.3d 302, 74 N.E.3d 687 [2017] ; People v. White , 4 AD3d 225, 226, 772 N.Y.S.2d 309 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 650, 782 N.Y.S.2d 421, 816 N.E.2d 211 [2004] ). "To deem a testifying, but recanting witness ‘available’ for Confrontation Clause purposes, as defendant suggests, would provide witness tamperers with an incentive to induce witnesses to recant rather than to refrain from testifying at all" ( People v. White , 4 A.D.3d at 226, 772 N.Y.S.2d 309 ).As to the merits, "the cumulative evidence and the inferences that logically flow therefrom were sufficient to support a determination by a rational fact finder, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that defendant ... was responsible for ... the conduct that rendered [Garrow] unavailable for trial" ( People v. Geraci , 85 N.Y.2d at 370, 625 N.Y.S.2d 469, 649 N.E.2d 817 ; accordPeople v. Rankin , 127 A.D.3d 1335, 1337, 6 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2015], lvs. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1144, 1149, 51 N.E.3d 569 [2016] ). When Garrow's trial testimony began to deviate from the statements that she had previously given to the prosecution, County Court suspended her testimony and granted the People's request for a Sirois hearing (seePeople v. Sirois , 92 A.D.2d 618, 459 N.Y.S.2d 813 [1983] ). At the hearing, the People relied upon dozens of letters exchanged between Garrow and defendant while the two were incarcerated prior to the trial in this matter.

  6. People v. Byrd

    152 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 21 times

    While defendant contends that his waiver was involuntary because the police officers involved in his apprehension had ordered him out of his vehicle with their firearms drawn, the arresting officer testified that, at the time that defendant was placed in the police vehicle, read Miranda rights and questioned, his weapon was reholstered beneath his coat and that the officers who remained on the scene had also reholstered their respective weapons. Considering the totality of the circumstances and according appropriate deference to County Court's factual and credibility determinations (see People v. Rankin, 127 A.D.3d 1335, 1339, 6 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2015], lvs. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1144, 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 58, 63, 51 N.E.3d 569, 574 [2016] ; People v. Nadal, 131 A.D.3d 729, 730, 14 N.Y.S.3d 591 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1041, 22 N.Y.S.3d 171, 43 N.E.3d 381 [2015] ), we find no basis to disturb County Court's determination that, from 7:20 p.m. to 7:26 p.m., defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see People v. Rizvi, 126 A.D.3d at 1173, 5 N.Y.S.3d 596 ; People v. Baker, 27 A.D.3d 1006, 1008, 811 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 785, 821 N.Y.S.2d 814, 854 N.E.2d 1278 [2006] ).

  7. People v. Smith

    140 A.D.3d 1403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    --------We are unpersuaded by defendant's contentions that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered from his person (see People v. Cruz, 131 A.D.3d 724, 726, 14 N.Y.S.3d 804 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1087, 23 N.Y.S.3d 644, 44 N.E.3d 942 [2015] ; People v. Vanhoesen, 31 A.D.3d 805, 806, 819 N.Y.S.2d 319 [2006] ) and the statements he made to the police while in custody (see People v. Rankin, 127 A.D.3d 1335, 1339, 6 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2015], lvs. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1144, 32 N.Y.S.3d 58, 51 N.E.3d 569 [2016] 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 [2016] ; People v. Cavallaro, 123 A.D.3d 1221, 1223, 998 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2014] ). Finally, in light of our determination, we need not reach defendant's contention that County Court considered improper factors when it imposed sentence.ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Ulster County for a new trial.

  8. People v. M.B.

    64 Misc. 3d 1208 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    It is also clear that the defendant was orally given his Miranda warnings at the start of the interview by Detective Weber. The fact that the defendant "did not execute a written waiver of his Miranda rights does not invalidate his oral waiver or otherwise render his statement involuntary" ( People v. Rankin , 127 AD3d 1335, 1339 [3rd Dept 2015] ). The question this court must decide is whether the defendant's statement was made after a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights.