Summary
finding no evidence that police used deception or trickery to isolate seventeen-year-old defendant from his parents so statement admissible
Summary of this case from State v. PreshaOpinion
January 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was illegally arrested in violation of Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573). The hearing court's determination on issues of credibility should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). We find no reason to disturb the court's finding that the police officers were credible witnesses. Their testimony established that they had probable cause to arrest the defendant and that the warrantless entry into his parents' apartment was effected with consent. Consequently, there was no Payton violation ( see, People v Levine, 174 A.D.2d 757).
There is also no merit to the defendant's contention that his statements were involuntary. It is undisputed that the defendant was not threatened, abused, or otherwise mistreated by the police ( see, People v Croney, 121 A.D.2d 558, 559). There is no evidence that the defendant requested an attorney at any time; that he was deprived of food or drink; or that he was subjected to persistent and overbearing interrogation or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process ( see, People v Padilla, 133 A.D.2d 353, 354). Further, the hearing court found that the defendant had twice been advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them prior to making both his oral and videotaped statements ( see, People v Padilla, supra; People v Croney, supra).
The defendant's claim that he was intentionally and unlawfully isolated from his parents is meritless, as he did meet with his father at or about the time of his first statement. Upon seeing the defendant handcuffed to a chair and upon the defendant stating that the police were trying to "pin" a murder on him, the defendant's father left the stationhouse, yet did not request or contact an attorney. In any event, refusal by the police to allow a parent to see a child does not render any subsequently obtained confession per se inadmissible. There is no evidence in this case that the police employed deception or trickery to isolate the defendant during questioning ( see, People v Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 55-56). Further, since the defendant was 17 years old at the time of his arrest and was not a juvenile offender, the statutory parental notification requirements were not applicable ( see, People v Salaam, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.