From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1991
171 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 18, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that a videotaped statement should have been suppressed as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" because it followed, by at least four hours, a statement she contends she made without benefit of adequate Miranda warnings but which was suppressed because of the People's failure to give notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. This claim, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1012-1013; People v Morris, 163 A.D.2d 589; People v Murriel, 134 A.D.2d 623, 624). In any event, assuming the first statement was not preceded by adequate Miranda warnings, it is clear that the defendant was given adequate Miranda warnings before she made the second videotaped statement and the definite and pronounced break between it and the first statement provided sufficient attenuation to remove any taint which could be attributable to the first statement (see, People v Ates, 157 A.D.2d 786, 787; People v Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706).

The defendant also contends that the court's discharge of a juror whose mother had died was error. We disagree. The court made a thorough inquiry with respect to the reason for the juror's absence and recited on the record its reasons for invoking the statutory authorization (see, CPL 270.35) to discharge the unavailable juror (see, People v Washington, 75 N.Y.2d 740, 741; People v Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69; People v Salley, 153 A.D.2d 704, 706).

Although certain remarks by the prosecutor may have been improper, their effect was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241; People v Fenner, 158 A.D.2d 538, 539; People v Rodriguez, 155 A.D.2d 627, affd 76 N.Y.2d 918). Finally, there is no basis for disturbing the defendant's sentence (see, People v Perez, 150 A.D.2d 395; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1991
171 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Velasquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GINA VELASQUEZ…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 528

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

There is ample authority for the proposition that such a break in circumstances like those presented here is…

People v. Padget

We similarly reject the defendant's contention that the fifth and sixth statements should have been…