PEOPLE v. SNIDER (1999)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of arson in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 150.05[1] ) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 11/313 to 4 years.   Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient and the verdict against the weight of the evidence on the issue of intent;  that the People's expert was improperly allowed to testify that the fire was intentionally set;  that the statement of defendant was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights;  that defense counsel was ineffective;  and that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe.

 The circumstances surrounding the fire and defendant's statements to police establish the essential element of intent.   Thus, the evidence is not legally insufficient and the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;  People v. Lobianco, 255 A.D.2d 909, 680 N.Y.S.2d 182;  People v. Thomas, 214 A.D.2d 439, 626 N.Y.S.2d 446, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 803, 632 N.Y.S.2d 517, 656 N.E.2d 616).

 Contrary to defendant's contention, the People's expert did not testify that the fire was intentionally set (cf., People v. Champion, 247 A.D.2d 901, 668 N.Y.S.2d 857, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 971, 672 N.Y.S.2d 850, 695 N.E.2d 719;  People v. Avellanet, 242 A.D.2d 865, 866, 662 N.Y.S.2d 345, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 868, 668 N.Y.S.2d 566, 691 N.E.2d 638;  People v. Capobianco, 176 A.D.2d 815, 816, 575 N.Y.S.2d 140, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 825, 580 N.Y.S.2d 205, 588 N.E.2d 103).   Instead, the expert testified that he could not tell from his investigation whether the fire was set intentionally or accidentally.   Thus, there was no impropriety in his testimony.

 The statement of defendant was not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.   The arresting officer testified that he read the warnings “verbatim” off a Miranda warning card, thus warranting County Court in finding that complete Miranda warnings were given prior to questioning.   In any event, the Miranda prophylaxis does not require a “ritualistic incantation of warnings in any particular language or form” (People v. Smith, 217 A.D.2d 221, 232, 635 N.Y.S.2d 824, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 977, 642 N.Y.S.2d 207, 664 N.E.2d 1270;  see, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696).   Here, the circumstances, viewed in their totality, establish the voluntariness of defendant's statements (see, Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724-725, 728, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197, reh. denied 444 U.S. 887, 100 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed.2d 121).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: