Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric HARTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J.), rendered July 24, 2000, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied suppression of defendant's statements. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). The totality of the circumstances establishes that defendant's girlfriend voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into the apartment (see, People v. Entzminger, 163 A.D.2d 138, 141, 558 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 68, 564 N.E.2d 678). The hearing court properly credited police testimony establishing that the girlfriend not only consented to a search and handed over the apartment key in a noncoercive atmosphere, but had volunteered to the police that the person for whom they might be looking had locked himself inside the apartment. The fact that she offered a key and expressed a preference that the police use it to enter rather than breaking down the door does not compel a conclusion that at some point the police had threatened to break in. The record also supports the other theory advanced by the People at the hearing, which was that the police entry was justified by exigent circumstances (see, People v. Williams, 181 A.D.2d 474, 581 N.Y.S.2d 21, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1055, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 596 N.E.2d 421).
The court properly denied suppression of defendant's response to the officer's question as to the location of the gun, on the ground that an officer may ask questions to clarify a potentially dangerous situation before giving Miranda warnings (see, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550; People v. Oquendo, 252 A.D.2d 312, 685 N.Y.S.2d 437, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 901, 689 N.Y.S.2d 713, 711 N.E.2d 989). In any event, defendant's false answer concerning his disposal of the gun down a sewer was only a minor component of the People's case.
The court properly exercised its discretion with respect to denial of youthful offender treatment, and we perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 11, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)