People v. Williams, 283 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). · Go Syfert
People v. Williams, 283 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 999 Determining custodial interrogation status for confession admissibility5 citing cases“We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]) and criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10).”the opinion's own words at *999 · 4 listed here
  • People v. Spoor, 148 A.D.3d 1795 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    The evidence at the suppression hearing established that defendant voluntarily accompanied the investigator to a police station while seated in the front passenger seat of an unmarked vehicle, was cooperative, and was never restrained in a…
  • People v. Sachs, 15 A.D.3d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005).published
    Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court properly determined that he was not subjected to custodial interrogation prior to receiving Miranda warnings (see People v Greene, 292 AD2d 832, 833 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 675 […
  • People v. Cunningham, 13 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2004).published
    Inasmuch as defendant willingly accompanied police, was not handcuffed, was offered food and beverages, was left alone for a period of time and was not questioned in an accusatory fashion, we conclude that “[a] reasonable person innocent o…
  • People v. Manzi, 292 A.D.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2002).published
    Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police, he was not restrained in any way, and he understood that he was free to leave at any time (see, People v Williams, supra at 999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Terrell Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 2, 2001.
Published opinion
283 A.D.2d 998
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4551
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment[*999] unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 125.25 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly determined that his confession was not tainted by statements that defendant made to police before he was given Miranda warnings. Although defendant was questioned by police for approximately two hours before he was given Miranda warnings, that questioning was not custodial in nature (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, rearg denied 26 NY2d 883, cert denied 400 US 851). Defendant voluntarily accompanied police in an unmarked vehicle and sat in the front seat of the vehicle; he was not restrained in any way; he was left alone in an unlocked room for periods of time; the questioning was not accusatory in nature; and defendant did not at any time indicate that he did not want to speak to police or that he wanted to leave (cf., People v Robbins, 236 AD2d 823, 824-825, lv denied 90 NY2d 863). During that initial period of questioning, statements made by defendant indicated to police that he was involved in the crime. He was then given Miranda warnings and waived his rights, but he did not admit his involvement in the crime until several hours later. “Because the initial statement[s] [were] not the product of pre-Miranda custodial interrogation, the post -Miranda detailed confession given by defendant cannot be considered the fruit of the poisonous tree” (People v Flecha, 195 AD2d 1052, 1053).

We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]) and criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10). There is no reasonable view of the evidence to support defendant’s contention that the jury could have found that he did not intend to cause the victim’s death; defendant and others were hired to kill the victim and the victim was killed in an execution-style shooting (see, People v Reed, 277 AD2d 1043; People v Drax, 256 AD2d 1205, 1205-1206, lv denied 94 NY2d 902; see generally, People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63).

We have considered the contention of defendant that cumulative errors denied him a fair trial and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.