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. Jamel HEYWARD, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered August 4, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial because the trial court did not instruct the jury to consider the alleged prearraignment delay and false promises made to him when assessing the voluntariness of his statements is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Quinones, 41 A.D.3d 868, 840 N.Y.S.2d 804; People v. Vasquez, 11 A.D.3d 643, 644, 782 N.Y.S.2d 679; People v. Lemos, 244 A.D.2d 429, 430, 664 N.Y.S.2d 87). In any event, this contention is without merit. The record fails to support the claim that law enforcement officials deliberately delayed the defendant's arraignment to procure a confession (see People v. Bryan, 43 A.D.3d 447, 448, 842 N.Y.S.2d 29). Likewise, the record fails to support the conclusion that the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials were made in response to a false promise of leniency (see People v. Lorandos, 13 A.D.3d 394, 785 N.Y.S.2d 337; People v. Darvie, 224 A.D.2d 442, 637 N.Y.S.2d 762). Furthermore, we note that under the circumstances of this case, the charge provided to the jury on assessing the voluntariness of the defendant's statements was sufficient (see generally People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301-302, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188; People v. Snyder, 294 A.D.2d 381, 382, 741 N.Y.S.2d 892; People v. Quinones, 184 A.D.2d 535, 536, 584 N.Y.S.2d 161).
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: April 01, 2008
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)