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, etc., respondent, v. Richard ISASI, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered March 30, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (12 counts), attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the second degree (5 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the hearing court properly held that his statement to law enforcement officials made before he was given Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) was voluntary and spontaneous, and was not “triggered by police conduct which should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant” (People v. Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, 555 N.Y.S.2d 681, 554 N.E.2d 1269, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70; see also, People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405; People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245). Thus, the court properly denied suppression of that statement.
The defendant also contends that his second statement, taken after he had been given Miranda warnings, should not have been admitted into evidence on the ground that it was the fruit of the prior interrogation. However, this argument is academic in light of our determination that his first statement was properly admitted into evidence. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the testimony of a surviving victim who had an opportunity to view the defendant over several hours, any error in the admission into evidence of the subject statements, was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)