The People, etc., respondent, v. Ronald Rodriguez, appellant. (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Ronald Rodriguez, appellant.

2008-11075 (Ind.No. 2455 /07)

Decided: October 26, 2010

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO ARIEL E. BELEN SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent. The defendant correctly contends in his supplemental pro se brief that the County Court should have granted his request to suppress his oral and written statements given to law enforcement after he was issued Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436).  “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease” (id. at 473-474;  see People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322,cert. denied472 U.S. 1007).   Moreover, once invoked, the right to remain silent must be “scrupulously honored” (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. at 479;  see People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316;  People v Kinnard, 62 N.Y.2d 910).   In the event that a suspect invokes his or her right to remain silent, interrogation must cease and the suspect “may not within a short period thereafter and without a fresh set of warnings be importuned to speak about the same suspected crime” (People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d at 322;  see People v Hernandez, 67 AD3d 703).   In this case, after initially agreeing to speak to the police, the defendant unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent by, inter alia, stating that he wanted to keep his story to himself (cf.  Berghuis v Thompkins, US, 130 S Ct 2250, 2260;  People v Stanley, 292 A.D.2d 472).   Instead of scrupulously honoring the defendant's right to remain silent, the detectives conducting the interview continued to interrogate the defendant, urging him to tell the truth (see People v Pearson, 20 AD3d 575).   Contrary to the defendant's contention, his later videotaped statement, made after the readministration of Miranda warnings, taken in a different location and by a different interviewer from his initial statements, was admissible, as it was taken after a definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who was not under the influence of the illegal questioning (see People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707).   The evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the tainted statements, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the alleged error in admitting the tainted statements might have contributed to the defendant's conviction.   Thus, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).