Summary
holding that statements made at street stop and during custodial interrogation at police precinct fifty minutes later were not part of "a continuous interrogation" for purposes of the completeness rule
Summary of this case from Livingston v. BrownOpinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Routine police investigation of crimes or suspicious conduct does not require that the Miranda warnings be administered unless the police have engaged in custodial interrogation (People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29). The sort of limited exchange that occurred between defendant and the officer herein, who was conducting an on-the-scene investigation of criminal activity and which resulted in an extemporaneous admission by defendant, does not mandate the delivery of the standard preinterrogation warnings (see, supra, at 34-35). Defendant certainly "was not interrogated to coerce a confession, but rather asked a question designed simply to clarify the situation" (People v Soto, 198 A.D.2d 38, 39, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 810).
Defendant further argues that, even if the admission of his street statement was not in error, the refusal to permit him to present evidence of his precinct station statement mandates a reversal of his conviction because the two statements composed a single explanation to the police of what had occurred that night. While it is settled that a defendant is entitled to have his entire statement, both inculpatory and exculpatory portions, placed into evidence (People v Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 566, 567), there is no authority for the proposition that a post- Miranda statement made at the station house some 50 minutes later than one that is offered in the course of a forcible street stop constitutes a continuous interrogation. The cases relied upon by defendant all concern relatively brief intervals between statements made at the precinct, such as a written statement followed shortly by a videotaped statement (People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Falcon, 204 A.D.2d 181, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 825). Indeed, in People v Hawthorne ( 160 A.D.2d 727), the Court expressly rejected the claim by defendant therein that a post- Miranda statement provided about 40 minutes after an earlier statement was the product of a continuous interrogation.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.