People v Crawford-Pickett

[*1] People v Crawford-Pickett 2010 NY Slip Op 50906(U) [27 Misc 3d 1225(A)] Decided on May 20, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 20, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York

against

Tracie Crawford-Pickett, Defendant.



6716/02



Attorney for the People:

ADA Roger McReady

Kings County District Attorney's Office

350 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718)-250-3300

Attorney for the Defendant:

Michael Washor, Esq.

233 Broadway, Suite 1800

New York, NY 10279

(212)-697-5900

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

Defendant is accused of the murder of her newborn infant, and moves to suppress statements she made to the police (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72). A hearing was held before the court at which a retired New York City detective, Albert Miller, testified credibly.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On September 27, 2002, Detective Miller was assigned to investigate the case of a deceased infant brought to Kings County Hospital by the defendant and her mother. He spoke to the defendant in the labor-delivery room of the hospital and was told that although she had gone to the hospital the night before after her water broke, she left against medical advice. She further stated that she was alone in the basement of her parents home late that night and that, in essence, the baby was stillborn.

In the early evening of the next day, September 28, 2002, Detective Miller went back to Kings County Hospital again to question the defendant. In the interim, he had received [*2]information from the medical examiners office that the infant died from blunt trauma. Having received this information, Detective Miller read the defendant her Miranda warnings before questioning her. The defendant and the detective signed the Miranda card and again the defendant made a statement in which she denied that the baby was dropped on the floor or hit against any hard surface, although she did admit never seeking or providing any medical assistance. Defendant was then arrested.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In a hearing seeking suppression of a criminal defendant's custodial statement to the police the People have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily waived her rights. If this is done, the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court that the defendant's relinquishments of her rights were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary (People v Love, 57 NY2d 998).

In this case, the first statement made to Detective Miller on September 27, 2002, was made before any arrest was made. Clearly the detective did not believe he was looking into a crime at that period in time; merely obtaining the facts around an infant's death. In addition, no reasonable person innocent of any crime would have believed she was in custody prior to making a statement (People v Palumbo, 49 NY2d 928; People v Roblee, 70 AD3d 225; People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d 1043). Therefore Miranda warnings were unnecessary and the defendant s statement is admissible.

With respect to the statement made on September 28, 2002, clearly defendant was in custody. Miranda warnings were given and defendant repeated her prior statement with some changes and additions at police prompting. Nothing in the detective's testimony indicated that the defendant did not understand the Miranda warnings as a result of blood loss, exhaustion or medication as counsel contends. It is clear from the hearing testimony that the defendant, under the totality of the circumstances, understood what she was doing (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285; People v Comfort, 6 AD3d 871; People v Ferguson, 285 AD2d 901; People v King, 234 AD2d 923; People v Gerard, 123 AD2d 635; People v Paul, 116 AD2d 746; People v Miles, 115 AD2d 962; People v Mathis, 77 AD2d 720), and the defendant has failed to prove otherwise (People v Williams, supra; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998). The defendant's statement is admissible.

The motion is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.