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. William SERRANO, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second 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.
The defendant contends that the hearing court should have suppressed a second inculpatory statement made by him because it was made during a continuous chain of police interrogation. However, it is well settled that, notwithstanding that a defendant made an earlier statement without the benefit of Miranda warnings, a later statement is admissible provided it follows a definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning (see, People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243). The defendant made a statement to the police, and approximately 5 1/212 hours later, made a second statement to the police. During the time between the first and second statements, the defendant was questioned by police officials other than the arresting officers (one of whom spoke his native language), concerning an unrelated crime, cooperated with the police concerning the unrelated crime, and was assured that he was not being charged with that unrelated crime. The hearing court properly found that this constituted a definite, pronounced break sufficient to find his second statement voluntary (see, People v. Pabon, 120 A.D.2d 685, 686, 501 N.Y.S.2d 915; see also, People v. Hicks, 226 A.D.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 161).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: May 10, 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)