11/27/2023 0 Comments Shoe impression evidence interviewindicated that she needed to leave to go to work, and that the investigators could continue to speak with her son in her absence. Tucker testified that after apprising the respondent of his rights as delineated above, Ms. Nor did respondent so request, at any point during the interview. asked them to stop their questioning nor had either asked for an attorney at any point. Both investigators indicated that neither the respondent nor Ms. sign a photocopy of the Miranda warning card that had just been read. Tucker further testified that after going through the aforementioned procedure he had both the respondent and Ms. stated that the respondent would speak to the investigators. ![]() Again, the respondent indicated that he did. then asked the respondent if he understood what had just been explained to him. Finally, at the conclusion of reading the respondent his rights, Ms. She also indicated that she understood the rights being read. was also asked if she understood each right. According to Tucker, after each right, the respondent affirmatively indicated that he understood the right just given. Importantly, Tucker testified that after reading each right listed in his Miranda warnings card that he paraphrased the warnings in simplified terms, so that the respondent could understand them. Tucker further stated that after each right, he stopped and asked the respondent if he understood what had just been read to him. Tucker (hereinafter "Tucker") testified that he read the respondent his Miranda warnings out loud to both the respondent and his mother, from his standard-issue Miranda warning card. Tucker's office, which is a designated juvenile interview room. Canali testified that they were brought into Inv. At the agreed upon time, the respondent and his mother arrived at the Elmira Police Department Detective Bureau. Z., setting up an interview for the following morning at 7:30AM. After gathering the aforementioned information, Canali called the respondent's home on June 16, 2005. During the course of the investigation, Canali had been made aware, after speaking with a number of youths, that the respondent may have been present during the criminal activity. Canali (hereinafter "Canali") testified that he had been assigned to investigate a burglary at the Parley Coburn School. The Chemung County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the "Department"), presented the testimony of two investigating officers - Michael Canali and Gerald Tucker. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented. The respondent now moves to suppress said statement pursuant to Family Ct. During the course of an investigation by the Elmira Police Department, a written statement was obtained from the respondent. In sum, the petition alleges that on or about Jthe respondent entered and remained unlawfully in Parley Coburn School with the intent to commit a crime therein. ![]() ![]() In the Matter of Ronald Y.Z., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.īy petition filed with this Court on Augrespondent was charged with acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the offense of Burglary in the Third Degree, as defined by Section 140.20 of the New York State Penal Law, a class D Felony. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |