From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1990
160 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 23, 1990

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no error in the hearing court's denial of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 710.30 to suppress various statements overheard by a police officer that were made by the defendant and a codefendant while the two were conversing in the police station holding cell. Not only were the contested statements voluntarily made (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 448), they were not made to the police or to one of their agents (see, People v. Rodriguez, 114 A.D.2d 525; People v Smith, 100 Misc.2d 823). Moreover, the People were not required to serve the defendant with notice of their intent to offer into evidence testimony as to an answer given by the defendant in response to a pedigree question, since the answer was not properly subject to a motion to suppress under CPL 60.45 (see, CPL 710.30 [a]; People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976; People v Miller, 123 A.D.2d 721). Similarly, the People did not have to notify the defendant of their intent to use a statement he made at his arrest wherein he professed his innocence as the remark was voluntary and part of the res gestae (see, People v. Mirenda, supra; People v. Wells, 133 A.D.2d 385).

The defendant also argues he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct during the People's summation. However, the defendant failed to object to one of the contested remarks, rendering any contention regarding it unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252), and the other remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67).

Finally, in light of the defendant's criminal conduct subsequent to the instant offense, it cannot be said the court improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to accord him youthful offender status (see, People v. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 633, 634; People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1990
160 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DURWIN STEWART…

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

Date published: Apr 23, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 687

Citing Cases

People v. Umana

The defendant's contention that the People were improperly permitted to elicit testimony as to a statement…

People v. Thomas

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.). While providing pedigree information,…