From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1987
130 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 18, 1987

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Bearing in mind that much weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (cf., People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), we find no basis in the record for disturbing the conclusions of the hearing court that at the time the defendant made his oral statements the police did not have actual knowledge that there were any charges pending against the defendant and that the police acted in good faith with respect to the defendant's right to counsel.

In response to the question by the police concerning whether he had ever been involved with or in trouble with the police, the defendant replied that he had damaged a police car. Any duty of inquiry on the part of the police with respect to this incident that may have arisen from the defendant's response was fully discharged by the police asking the defendant, "Well, what happened?", to which the defendant replied, "Nothing".

Accordingly, suppression was properly denied (see, People v Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 118-120). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1987
130 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ…

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

Date published: May 18, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Thornton

At the very least, Detective Gill had a duty to ask the defendant if charges were pending and if defendant…