From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roldos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 1990
161 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 7, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the hearing court properly denied his motion to suppress his admission to the police that he was also known as "Wolf". The record shows that the admission was not the result of any custodial interrogation and, therefore, did not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings (see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356).

Nor do we find any error in the admission into evidence by the trial court of a pair of boots which the defendant admitted he wore on the night of the murder. The People made an adequate showing to connect the defendant, the boots and the crime. That the blood drops found on the boots could not be matched with the victim's blood goes to their evidentiary weight and not to their admissibility (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439; People v Price, 128 A.D.2d 648).

We agree with the defendant that the court should have augmented its charge by stating that reasonable doubt could arise from a lack of evidence as well as from the evidence presented (see, People v. Cullum, 123 A.D.2d 397; People v. Ostin, 62 A.D.2d 1004; 1 CJI[NY] 6.20). However, because the defendant did not request the charge which he now complains was erroneously omitted and failed to except to the charge as given, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Given the horrific and brutal circumstances of this murder, there is no basis to reduce the defendant's sentence which, we note, did not exceed the sentence imposed after the first trial of this case (see, People v. Roldos, 112 A.D.2d 388).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roldos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 1990
161 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Roldos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILFREDO ROLDOS…

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

Date published: May 7, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 186

Citing Cases

People v. Way

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request to incorporate certain language into the jury…

People v. Pierre

There was ample evidence that the defendant and his accomplice consciously displayed something that could…