Defendant is accused of firing a gun through the apartment window of his former girlfriend, injuring her. Defendant moves to suppress his statement to the police on the ground that he was incapable of waiving his rights as a result of mental illness. A hearing was held before the court. Testifying credibly at the hearing were Detective Matthew Walker, Police Officer Pierre Pradieu and Doctor Myra Recon-Bucevic.

Detective Walker was assigned to investigate this shooting on February 16, 2007. He spoke to the complaining witness who believed that the defendant, with whom she had a relationship, shot her. He attempted to locate the defendant but could not. As a result of conversations with the defendant's grandmother, the detective contacted the psychiatric departments of two hospitals in an attempt to find Mr. Corbett to no avail.

On February 22, 2007, the defendant called the complainant. She contacted Detective Walker which led to the defendant's arrest at a pay phone in Far Rockaway on February 23, 2007. He was taken to the 67th Precinct and was processed without any problem. At about 9:00 in the morning of February 24, 2007, the defendant was brought to the interview room where he was described by Detective Walker as "calm, quiet, cooperative". Mr. Corbett reviewed a Miranda warnings sheet and was read each warning. According to Detective Walker, he answered "yes" to each question and placed his initials after each warning. The defendant was given a pen and paper and asked to write his statement. The detective left the room. When the defendant finished he was asked to sign the statement in which the defendant admitted going to the complainant's apartment to scare her by breaking the window and firing two shots into her room.

Police Officer Pradieu testified that on the same day he transported the defendant from the 67th Precinct to Central Booking and later to the psychiatric ward at Kings County Hospital at the direction of a supervisor. He did not remember anything else about the defendant.

Doctor Recon-Bucevic, a psychiatrist at Queens Hospital, treated the defendant on an out-patient basis from May 21, 2007 until April 4, 2008. She diagnosed the defendant with psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified. The doctor noted that the Kings County Hospital records indicate that when the defendant was evaluated on February 24, 2007, he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder which she described as "any form of behavior or emotion, emotion that is in response to a specific event". He was not prescribed any medications; nor was he experiencing any delusions or hallucinations. In fact the Kings County Hospital records, introduced as an exhibit at the hearing by the defendant, indicate that no medication was prescribed and no follow-up appointment required. He was assessed as alert and coherent with no cognitive limitations. A psychological evaluation of the defendant dated June 9, 2008, by a clinical psychologist, Beverly E. Martin, diagnoses the defendant with paranoid schizophrenia.

In a hearing seeking suppression of a criminal defendant's custodial statements to the police, the People have the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily waived his rights. If this is done, the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court that the defendant's relinquishment of his rights was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary (People v Love, 57 NY2d 998). In this case, the defendant showed no signs of emotional distress to the police while giving pedigree information, being informed of his rights, or writing his statement. It is clear the he understood what was asked of him and was able to write a cogent statement of events - one which mirrored a telephone conversation with his girlfriend a little more than a day earlier.

None of the records, evaluation or testimony submitted by the defense demonstrate a lack of understanding by Mr. Corbett. The fact that he carries a psychiatric evaluation is of no moment. The only issue is whether he understood his rights and intelligently agreed to give them up. It is clear that he did. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. [*3]

Whether the defendant intelligently waived his rights is a factual question to be determined by the totality of the circumstances of which mental capacity is only one factor (People v King, 234 AD2d 923). It is not required that a defendant understand more than the immediate meaning of the warnings, that is, the basic concept that he can refuse to talk or ask for a lawyer (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285; People v Ferguson, 285 AD2d 901); and neither mental instability, cognitive deficits nor limited intelligence mandate a different finding (People v Comfort, 6 AD3d 871; 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).

The motion is denied.This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

______________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.