PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Larry J. Schwartz, J.), rendered May 23, 2023, convicting her of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), 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 her statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to law enforcement officials (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436).  “The Miranda rule protects the privilege against self-incrimination and, because the privilege applies only when an accused is compelled to testify, the safeguards required by Miranda are not triggered unless a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation” (People v. Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 129 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Here, two of the defendant's statements at issue, made during a 911 call and at the scene of the incident, either were spontaneous and not triggered by police questioning or other conduct that reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from her, or were made in response to questions that were investigatory in nature—rather than accusatory—before the defendant was in custody (see People v. Mayorga, 234 AD3d 876, 876–877).

Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights before making statements to law enforcement officials at the police station (see People v. Thomas, 22 NY3d 629, 641;  People v. Shane, 187 AD3d 1219, 1219).  At the suppression hearing, the testimony of a police officer established that the defendant was provided verbal and written Miranda warnings, as well as Spanish translation when requested, and that she indicated that she understood her rights and was willing to speak with police officers.  Contrary to the defendant's contention, nothing in the hearing record indicates that the defendant failed to understand her Miranda rights or that she was coerced into providing a statement.  Rather, the evidence was sufficient to establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver (see People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968;  People v. Shane, 187 AD3d at 1219).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

CHAMBERS, J.P., FORD, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.