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. David C. Knudson, appellant.
Submitted—January 7, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered January 26, 2012, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, strangulation in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (St.George, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that a statement he gave to a detective was voluntarily made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). The evidence at the suppression hearing does not support the defendant's contention that he was “ ‘intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements' ” (People v. Shields, 295 A.D.2d 374, quoting People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, cert denied 389 U.S. 874). The fact that the defendant was moved from one floor of the police station to another and there was a 30–minute hiatus between the time the Miranda warnings were administered and the time the defendant made the statement did not render the statement involuntary or the warnings ineffective (see People v. Tobias, 273 A.D.2d 925; People v. James, 271 A.D.2d 456).
Suppression of two statements the defendant made to a police officer before Miranda warnings were administered was properly denied, as those statements were not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent (see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291; People v. Latimer, 75 AD3d 562).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152).
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2012–02876 (Ind.No. 506 /11)
Decided: February 05, 2014
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)