People v. Rong He
68 N.Y.S.3d 130
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Nightclub stabbing (Feb 15, 2011): defendant allegedly stabbed Tong Zhang (neck) and Chun Zhang (face, chest, arm). Victims later identified him.
- Defendant was encountered in a three‑story residential building on 52nd Street six months later; police entered a shared area and saw him standing outside his third‑floor door. He was escorted downstairs, shown to a victim, identified in a show‑up, handcuffed and taken to the precinct.
- At the precinct the defendant remained in custody; about 4½ hours after arrest he was interviewed in an interview room with an officer‑translator, given Miranda warnings (which he initialed and signed), and made a statement claiming self‑defense.
- Supreme Court suppressed the arrest as a Payton violation (warrantless arrest in an area the court deemed part of the home) but denied suppression of the post‑arrest statement as attenuated from the illegal arrest.
- On appeal the defendant argued the statement should have been suppressed as not sufficiently attenuated; the People argued no Payton violation or, alternatively, adequate attenuation. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless arrest (Payton) | People: hallway outside apt not part of home; arrest lawful | Defendant: arrest occurred in hallway area of his home without warrant | Not reviewed on appeal (trial court decided for defendant) |
| Suppression of statement — attenuation doctrine | People: 4½ hour gap, change of place, different officers, Miranda warnings, victim identification before interview attenuated taint | Defendant: statement was product of illegal arrest; show‑up and prior knowledge were direct outgrowth of arrest, not an intervening event | Affirmed: Court found factors (time, different location and officers, Miranda, victim interview) sufficiently attenuated taint |
| Brady claim — nondisclosure of witness contact info | People: nondisclosure did not amount to Brady violation | Defendant: failure to disclose witness contact info suppressed defense ability | Held for People; no Brady violation |
| Flagrancy of police misconduct | People: arrest not in bad faith | Defendant: arrest was flagrant mis‑conduct, undermining attenuation | Majority: no flagrant misconduct found; Dissent disagreed and would remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into home to make arrest generally prohibited)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (post‑arrest Miranda warnings not necessarily sufficient to purge taint of illegal arrest)
- People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982 (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of official misconduct)
- People v. Bradford, 15 N.Y.3d 329 (attenuation analysis and weight of Miranda and other factors)
- People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470 (appellate review limits where trial court ruled in defendant's favor)
- Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (example of insufficient attenuation despite time and Miranda)
- People v. Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434 (statements after Payton violation must be suppressed unless taint attenuated)
- People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527 (example where intervening events supported attenuation)