From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 1, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.).


The hearing court's finding that defendant was not in custody prior to his being given Miranda warnings should not be disturbed. "Where there are different inferences that can be drawn from the facts, the choice is for the trier of the facts and should be honored unless unsupported as a matter of law" (People v McNeeley, 77 A.D.2d 205, 208-209). Defendant's presence at the precinct for nearly two days is not determinative (see, People v Centano, 153 A.D.2d 494, 495, affd 76 N.Y.2d 837). Rather, the test of whether a defendant is in custody is what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in defendant's position (compare, supra, with People v Byers, 71 A.D.2d 77, and People v Balint, 92 A.D.2d 348). Defendant voluntarily appeared at the precinct, he was not restrained while there, he was given food and cigarettes and allowed to sleep, and the questioning was not continuous.

Defendant, emphasizing that he was shoeless between the time that a detective noted dark stains on his sneakers and his friend arrived at the precinct with a replacement pair, argues that he was confronted with incriminating evidence during this time, but the record supports the hearing court's credibility determination that the detective wanted the sneakers to test them for blood and that defendant voluntarily relinquished them when another pair was made available.

Defendant also argues that the tenor of the investigation impels a finding that he was in custody, but the police view of the facts is not determinative, and the record does not show that the detectives conveyed their suspicions to defendant. Certainly, the detectives did not accuse defendant of the crime. In this regard, defendant's statement that he believed the door to the interview room was locked is contradicted by the evidence that he had relative freedom to move about, and there is no basis to find that defendant was precluded from trying the door.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAMUEL WRIGHT…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 3

Citing Cases

People v. Hernandez

At the time defendant made the second statement that he claims should have been preceded by Miranda warnings,…

People v. Burns

The police described defendant as cooperative, "very cordial" and "at ease." Under these circumstances, the…