People v. Floyd
926 N.Y.S.2d 571
N.Y. App. Div.
2011
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v TANISHA FLOYD, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

926 NYS2d 571

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered May 20, 2009, convicting her of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Carter, J.), after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of oral and written statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the hearing court properly denied her oral application to dismiss the indictment (see ; ; ; ).

The police are prohibited from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect‘s home to make a routine felony arrest (see ). “Nevertheless, ‘[c]ourts have long recognized that the Fourth Amendment is not violated every time police enter [ ] private premises without a warrant‘” (, cert denied quoting ). Here, exigent circumstances existed which justified law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant‘s home (see ; see also ). Moreover, an innocent person in the defendant‘s circumstances would have believed that she was free to leave the presence of the police at the time she left for police headquarters (see , cert denied ), and there is sufficient evidence to support the hearing court‘s conclusion that the defendant voluntarily accompanied police personnel to police headquarters (see ; ). Thus, the hearing court properly declined to suppress oral and written statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

The defendant‘s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction of manslaughter in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see ) and, in any event, is without merit (see generally ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury‘s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see , cert denied ; ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of manslaughter in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see ).

The defendant‘s contention that the trial court erred in its charge on justification is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also ). In any event, the jury was properly instructed on the definition of the term “dwelling” for purposes of Penal Law § 35.15 (see ; CJI2d [NY] Penal Law § 35.15). The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state and federal standards (see ; ; ; ).

The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.

Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.