People v. Demello

186 A.D.3d 1709

129 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Minguel C. DEMELLO, Appellant.

2018–01300

Ind.No. 38/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—June 25, 2020

September 30, 2020

Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered January 11, 2018, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated family offense (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 a statement he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the first degree and two counts of aggravated family offense after he violated an order of protection directing him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend and her two children.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review of the record (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

We agree with the County Court's determination denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement he made to police on December 22, 2016, before Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) were given, since that statement was spontaneous and not the result of interrogation or its functional equivalent (see People v. Polancobatista, 155 A.D.3d 1064, 1064–1065, 65 N.Y.S.3d 458 ; People v. Browne, 144 A.D.3d 834, 41 N.Y.S.3d 238 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) constituted a provident exercise of discretion, and did not deprive the defendant of the right to testify on his own behalf (see People v. Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 588, 593–594, 942 N.Y.S.2d 5, 965 N.E.2d 232 ; ...