New York Defendant in Reckless Assault Case Challenges Lower Court’s Denial of Motion to Suppress

In a recent assault case in New York before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the defendant asked the court to reconsider a lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was charged with and convicted of reckless assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal, he argued that because no one informed him of his Miranda rights, the statement he made to a police officer was inadmissible in court. Reviewing the record, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal, affirming his conviction as well as the resulting sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant first interacted with police officers in this case when his four-week-old baby was being treated for serious injuries in the hospital. Officers asked the defendant how his baby got the injuries, and they later discovered that the defendant had been shaking the baby, which ultimately caused the injuries.

The State charged the defendant, and he filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to officers in the hospital. According to the defendant, he revealed incriminating information during this conversation, and the statements were inadmissible because no one ever read him his Miranda rights, which are required under the law. The lower court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant emphasized the importance of his Miranda rights. In a criminal case, when an individual is taken into custody for interrogation, he or she must be informed of the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney. Because no one read him this statement of rights, said the defendant, the resulting conversation with the police officer was inadmissible as part of the trial court’s record.

The court noted that it is true that an individual must be read their Miranda rights if he or she is taken into custody for interrogation. Here, however, the defendant was not in custody at the time of the questioning; he was in the hospital while his baby was being treated for the injuries. In addition, the officer was not interrogating the defendant; the defendant was instead voluntarily sharing information about the injuries in question.

Because the defendant was not in custody and was not being interrogated, the officer did not actually have a legal responsibility to read the defendant his Miranda rights. Therefore, said the court, the statements were admissible, and the lower court’s decision would be affirmed.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of New York?

At Tilem & Associates, we are a boutique litigation firm with a large legal footprint. Our knowledge and experience make us uniquely poised to represent the accused in New York, and we are well-known for our aggressive strategies that win our clients the results they need. For a free and confidential consultation with a member of our team, call us today at 877-377-8666. We handle all types of serious criminal cases, including those involving violent crimes. You can also fill out our online form to have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Contact Information