PEOPLE v. JANDREAU (2000)

 County Court properly denied the motion of defendant seeking suppression of his statements concerning certain burglaries in Ontario County.   After being advised of his Miranda rights at the scene of the arrest, defendant spoke freely to the investigator there about certain burglaries in Wayne County.   When the investigator attempted to question defendant about burglaries in Ontario County, defendant stated that he wanted to “think about it first”.   That statement did not constitute an unequivocal assertion of the right to remain silent.   The right to remain silent “is not asserted where a defendant merely refuses to answer specific questions or expresses a desire to avoid certain areas of inquiry” (People v. Morton, 231 A.D.2d 927, 928, 647 N.Y.S.2d 897, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 944, 655 N.Y.S.2d 895, 678 N.E.2d 508;  see, People v. Cody, 260 A.D.2d 718, 719-720, 689 N.Y.S.2d 245, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1002, 695 N.Y.S.2d 747, 717 N.E.2d 1084).

 Defendant was transported to the New York State Trooper barracks in Lyons after his arrest.   Contrary to defendant's contention, it was not necessary that the Miranda warnings be repeated.  “It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous” (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, 484 N.Y.S.2d 64, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 889, 487 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 476 N.E.2d 1013, cert. denied 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3487, 87 L.Ed.2d 621;  see, People v. Johnson, 219 A.D.2d 776, 777, 631 N.Y.S.2d 454).   In any event, before further questioning at the barracks, investigators elicited from defendant an acknowledgment that he understood his rights and his agreement to further questioning.  “It is a firmly established principle that a suspect who is in custody need not be given the full litany of rights prior to questioning if he has previously been informed of those rights within a short time interval” (People v. McCoy, 122 A.D.2d 957, 958, 506 N.Y.S.2d 103, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 714, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 504 N.E.2d 408).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: