People v Freeman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Freeman 2015 NY Slip Op 32436(U) November 16, 2015 County Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 15-79 Judge: Dennis M. Kehoe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY COURT : COUNTY OF WAYNE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, -vs- DECISION WILLIE J. FREEMAN, Ind. No. 15-79 Defendant 1) The Defendant Willie J. Freeman is charged by lf dictment #1579 with the following crimes: Count One: Count Two: Count Three: Count Four: Count Five: Robbery in the First Degree in violation of 160.15(3) (Kwik Fill); Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of §160.10(2)(a) (Kwik Fill); Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of §160.10(2)(a) (Kwik Fill); Assault in the Second Degree in violation ,f §120.05(2) (Kwik Fill); I Assault in the Second Degree in violation <l>f §120.05(2) (Kwik Fill); Assault in the Second Degree in violation 9f §120.05(6) (Kwik Fill); I Assault in the S~cond Degree in violation 1 §120.05(6) f (Kwik Fill); Burglary in the Third Degree in violation of §140.20 (Spanky's ); Petit Larceny in violation of §155.25 (Span y's); Burglary in the Third Degree in violation of §140.20 (Burnham's); Petit Larceny in violation of §155.25 (Burnlnam's) J Count Six: Count Seven: Count Eight: Count Nine: County Ten: County Eleven: -1- [* 2] 2) On or about August 19, 2015, the Defendant all~gedly entered Spanky's Restaurant in Lyons, New York unlawfully and stole U.S. currency. 3) On or about August 19, 2015, the Defendant allegedly entered Burnham's Restaurant in Lyons, New York unlawfully and ~tole U.S. currency. 4) On or about August 25, 2015, the Defendant all~gedly forcibly stole property from Kwik Fill in Lyons, New York. At the time of the commission of said robbery, the Defendant allegedly assaylted Susan Pascarella and Reva Schwab, both non-participants, thereby causing physical injury to each of them. It is also alleged that the Defendant used a dangerous instrument, to wit, brass knuckles, during the co~mission of said felony, and that he caused physical injury to Susan Pascarella and Reva Schwab by the use of said dangerous instrument. FINDINGS OF FACT Testimony was elicited from a number of witnesses at a Huntley hearing which was held on October 23, 2015 to determine the admissibility at trial of statements allegedly made to police officers by thk Defendant. . The People also introduced into evidence two DVD discs. Exhibit 3 is a video of an interview of the Defendant conducted by Investigator Tammy Ryndock of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office. Exhibit 4 is 6 video of an interview of the Defendant conducted by Trooper Chris Brau of the New m York State Police, at which Deputy Zachary Aunkst of the vYayne County Sheriff's Office was present in part. At his request, the Defendant proceeded pro se at the hearing, with court-appointed stand-by counsel, Douglas M. Jablonski , Esq ., also present. I The testimony presented at the hearing included the f?llowing: A) Chief Deputy Robert Hetzke of the Wayne Coun~y Sheriff's Office testified that, upon hearing a radio communication frqm a fellow officer regarding visual contact with the Defendant in the vicinity of Queen -2- [* 3] Street and Butternut Street in Lyons, New York, he proceedrd to drive to that location. Upon observing the Defendant attempting to llimb underneath a porch at one of the residences in the area, C ief Hetzke approached the Defendant and placed him under arrest, or ering him to his knees at gunpoint. He then turned the Defendant over tb the custody of two other officers. He did not question the Defendant. Chief Hetzke testified that he recognized the Defendarit from prior contact, and from an investigative briefing held earlier that day in connection with the Kwik Fill robbery. During the briefing , 9 hief Hetzke was shown a photograph, which was obtained from a video{of the robbery filmed by a security camera at the station, and the witness as able to identify the individual in the photograph as the Defendant. B) Deputy Phillip Dalton of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office testified that he arrived at the scene while Chief Hetzke held the Defendant at gunpoint. The Defendant was then hand-cuffed, and was placed in the custody of Parole Office Jack Caster, who had previously b!en assigned to supervise the Defendant. Subsequently, custody of the Defendant was transferred to Deputy Dalton and a second deputy, who trarlsported the nterrogation Defendant to the Sheriff's Office. The officers stayed in an. i1 room with the Defendant until two Sheriff Investigators arrived . The depuUes did not question the Defendant, and they were not present in the room during the subsequent interview. C) Investigator Tammy Ryndock of the Wayne Cou~ty Sheriffs Office testified that she was involved in the investigation of tlhe burglary which occurred at Spanky's on August 19, 2015. As part of that investigation, she reviewed a video of the crime, which was recorded by a surveillance camera at the restaurant. The witness testified that the suspect who appears on the video was identified by Parole Officer Jack Caster as the Defendant. The Investigator also reviewed the surveillance tape of the Kwik Fill robbery and positively identified the Defendant as the perpetrator, whom she has personally known for a number f years. Investigator Ryndock, together with Investigator Kevin Kuntz of the -3- [* 4] Wayne County Sheriffs Office, interviewed the Defendant f r approximately two hours in the Interrogation Room. lnvestidator Ryndock advised the Defendant as to his Miranda rights prior to questioning. The Defendant indicated verbally that he understood those right~. as further evidenced by his initialing a waiver. The entire interview w~s recorded, on the disc received by the Court as Exhibit 3. While initially dknying involvement in any criminal behavior, the Defendant subseqLently admitted having committed the burglaries and the robbery in question . In addition to his oral statements, the Defendant also signed a written stat ment, prepared by Investigator Ryndock. D) Deputy Zachary Aunkst of the Wayne County Sh riff's Office testified that, subsequent to the completion of the lnvestigat rs' interview, he came into contact with the Defendant in the Interrogation Room, and he remained there intermittently for approximately one and one half hours until such time as the Defendant was to be transported for arraig~ment by a local Justice. Deputy Aunkst testified that the Defendant made a statement to himthat he committed the Kwik Fill robbery. The video recording received as Exhibit 4 indicates th1t Deputy Aunkst was present in the interview room during a portion o~ the time when the Defendant was questioned by State Trooper Chris Braun on an unrelated matter. Trooper Braun read the Defendant Miranda warnings, and the Defendant indicated that he understood his rights al~d that he was willing to talk. The Defendant never requested an attorney a any time during the interview. The Defendant volunteered informatio! regarding alleged narcotics dealers and gun possession in an attempt o obtain a promise from the officers regarding a reduced sentence or I w bail. However, both officers repeatedly advised the Defendant th~t they could make no promises to the Defendant. 1 E) The Defendant Willie Freeman, after consultatio'l with stand-by counsel, also testified at the hearing. The Defendant denied committing any of the crimes with which he was charged. He also argu~d at length that he relied on promises allegedly made to him by lnvestigbtor Ryndock regarding favorable treatment, and that he therefore falsely ·ncriminated -4- [* 5] himself as a result of those promises. He denied signing th~ statement prepared by the Investigator following the interview. (Exhibit 2). CONCLUSIONS The Court having considered the credible testimony of the witnesses as set forth in the above Findings, and having further revievlred the video recordings marked Exhibit "3" and "4" of the Defendant's interviews with police officers, I conclude as follows: 1) The actions of members of the Wayne County S eriff's Office in arresting the Defendant and taking him into custody were s~pported by probable cause; 2) The arresting officers did not question the Defendant, nor did the Defendant volunteer any spontaneous statements during his arrest and transport to the Sheriff's Office. J 3) The Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights by Investigator Ryndock prior to commencement of the first interview, and ~e indicated that he understood and waived his rights, both verbally and J writing. The in Defendant made no request for an attorney. 4) The Defendant was interviewed for approximately two hours, during which time he made statements incriminating himself in both burglaries and in the Kwik Fill robbery. The Defendant also signed a statement prepared by the Investigator. 5) No physical force, duress or threats were used by any police officer in order to obtain the statements made by the Defendant. While the Defendant testified at the hearing that Investigator Ryndockl made certain promises to the Defendant during the interview to elicit his s~atements, the video recording clearly shows that it was the Defendant himself who attempted to obtain assurances regarding leniency by offering to provide information regarding narcotic sales and that the lnvesUgator's only promise was that she would accompany the Defen9ant to his arraignment, -5- [* 6] and that she would advise the authorities if the Defendant c0-operated during the investigation . She repeatedly told the Defendant hat any offers regarding possible leniency must come from the People. T is Court finds Investigator Ryndock's testimony to be credible. 6) This Court also concludes that any statements m de by the Defendant during the period recorded on Exhibit 4 were not he product of any physical force, duress or threats. The Defendant was r~-read his Miranda rights by Trooper Braun at the commencement of the second interview. As previously stated, the purpose of that intervie~ was largely unrelated to the instant charges, although considerable time was spent in the Defendant's continuing attempts to "made a deal" with t e officer to secure a promise of low bail. However, no promises were rlJade to the Defendant other than general statements that the· officer wo Id convey information supplied by the Defendant to the People. Therefore, it is the decision of this Court that any oral ?tatements made by the Defendant during the interviews recorded on thf video discs received as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, together with any writte statement signed by the Defendant, as well as any photographs or tes s which were obtained during said interviews, were voluntary, were not th product of coercion, and shall be admissible at the time of trial. Dated: November 16, 2015 Lyons, New York. /I / ( v ' Honorable Dennis County Court Judg . -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
