From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Steadman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 16, 1990

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's inculpatory statements made to the police. The court found credible the police officers' testimony that upon executing a valid search warrant for the defendant's apartment in connection with a homicide investigation, they asked the defendant, in the presence of his mother, if he would accompany them to the precinct and answer some questions. Although the defendant was a suspect at the time, the police possessed insufficient evidence to arrest him. The hearing court credited the police officers' assertion that the defendant voluntarily accompanied them to police headquarters, having found elements of the defense witnesses' testimony patently incredible. The evidence further showed that during the several hours that the defendant spent at police headquarters, he was not in custody, and was free to leave. The evidence revealed that under the circumstances then present, a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would not have felt deprived of his freedom in any significant way (People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585; People v. Rodney P., 21 N.Y.2d 1, 5-6). Furthermore, the evidence revealed that although the police made it clear to the defendant just how much they knew about his involvement in the homicide, initially, no interrogation took place. When the defendant indicated that he wanted to make a statement, he was fully advised of, and waived, his Miranda rights. There having been no custodial interrogation prior to the defendant being given his rights, the statements obtained were properly admissible.

Furthermore, since the defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree with no apparent extenuating circumstances, his sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Steadman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Steadman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HARRY STEADMAN…

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

Date published: Jan 16, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 49

Citing Cases

People v. Steadman

December 6, 2004. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Gonzalez

That fact that one is in a police station is not necessarily indicative of whether one is in custody. (See,…