People v. Marinus — 90 A.D.3d 677

Majority

p. 677

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Marinus, Appellant.

[933 NYS2d 872]

The County Court properly denied that branch of the defend

p. 678

ant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements he gave to law enforcement officials on July 1, 2007, and July 11, 2007. The credibility determinations made by the County Court after a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Spann, 82 AD3d 1013 , 1014 [2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980 , 981 [2010]; People v Leggio, 305 AD2d 518 , 519 [2003]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the County Court’s determination that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at the time the statements were made (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194 [2d Dept 2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d at 981 ; People v Perez, 44 AD3d 441 , 442 [2007]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 , 217 [2007]). Accordingly, the statements were not the product of custodial interrogation improperly conducted without the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 , 444 [1966]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (s ee People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the second degree 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 [2007]), 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 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). 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 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P, Balkin, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

People v. Smith 77 AD3d 980 N.Y. App. Div. 2010-10-26 at 981 p. 678
People v. Yukl 25 NY2d 585 N.Y. 1969-12-11 at 589 p. 678
People v. Borukhova 89 AD3d 194 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-10-25 p. 678
People v. Perez 44 AD3d 441 N.Y. App. Div. 2007-10-16 at 442 p. 678
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 SCOTUS 1966-06-13 at 444 p. 678
People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 N.Y. 1983-09-01 p. 678
People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 N.Y. 2007-12-13 p. 678
Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 SCOTUS 2004-06-28 p. 678
People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 N.Y. 1987-05-07 at 495 p. 678
People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 N.Y. 2006-11-21 p. 678
People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 N.Y. App. Div. 1982-11-22 p. 678