PEOPLE v. RICHARDSON (2021)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J. at suppression hearing;  Daniel P. Conviser, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 29, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police.  Miranda warnings were not required, because, to the extent the police briefly detained defendant for questioning in the lobby of his residence, this did not constitute custody for Miranda purposes (see Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436–437, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 [1984];  People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289 [1987]).  Furthermore, the court credited the officer's testimony that the questioning was merely investigatory (see People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 33–34, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353 [1976];  People v. Williams, 271 A.D.2d 335, 335, 708 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 859, 714 N.Y.S.2d 10, 736 N.E.2d 871 [2000]).  In any event, on this record, any error would be harmless.

The verdict was not against the weight of evidence (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]).  There was ample evidence to support the conclusion that when defendant entered the room of a fellow resident of a single room occupancy building, he intended to commit a crime.  Among other things, the victim found that his room had been ransacked.  Defendant admittedly took valuable property, and was depicted on videotape doing so.  Defendant's claim that he thought the property in the room was “abandoned” and free to take is without merit.

The court providently exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from cross-examining the arresting officer about the fact that in her paperwork she charged defendant with petit larceny rather than burglary (see generally People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 53, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118 [2011]).  The officer's lay opinion on a matter of law, where the correct legal charge was subsequently determined by the District Attorney's Office, was irrelevant and potentially misleading to the jury.