AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HARRY STEADMAN, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's inculpatory statements made to the police. The court found credible the police officers' testimony that upon executing a valid search warrant for the defendant's apartment in connection with a homicide investigation, they asked the defendant, in the presence of his mother, if he would accompany them to the precinct and answer some questions. Although the defendant was a suspect at the time, the police possessed insufficient evidence to arrest him. The hearing court credited the police officers' assertion that the defendant voluntarily accompanied them to police headquarters, having found elements of the defense witnesses' testimony patently incredible. The evidence further showed that during the several hours that the defendant spent at police headquarters, he was not in custody, and was free to leave. The evidence revealed that under the circumstances then present, a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would not have felt deprived of his freedom in any significant way (People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585; People v. Rodney P., 21 N.Y.2d 1, 5-6). Furthermore, the evidence revealed that although the police made it clear to the defendant just how much they knew about his involvement in the homicide, initially, no interrogation took place. When the defendant indicated that he wanted to make a statement, he was fully advised of, and waived, his Miranda rights. There having been no custodial interrogation prior to the defendant being given his rights, the statements obtained were properly admissible.

Furthermore, since the defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree with no apparent extenuating circumstances, his sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. STEADMAN
(Jan 16, 1990)