In re Kenneth B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth B.

132 A.D.2d 922, 518 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49373

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 10, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.2d 922 (In re Kenneth B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Kenneth B., 132 A.D.2d 922, 518 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, by stealing bicycles from a bicycle shop. Respondent argues that the court erred at the suppression hearing under Family Court Act § 330.2 (1) in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that his statement was voluntary. We agree that the court applied an incorrect standard and that the presentment agency was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent’s statement was voluntary (People v Rosa, 65 NY2d 380, 386). However, we make our own findings from the record of the suppression hearing, pursuant to CPL 470.15 (1), that respondent’s statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and that questioning stopped as soon as his mother said that she wanted him to have an attorney. Respondent’s contention that the testimony of accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated is without merit; his admission that he participated in the theft, as testified to by Officer Wilcox, is sufficient corroboration (see, People v Burgin, 40 NY2d 953, 954; People v Rushlow, 94 AD2d 933). We have examined respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J. — juvenile delinquency.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, by stealing bicycles from a bicycle shop. Respondent argues that the court erred at the suppression hearing under Family Court Act § 330.2 (1) in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that his statement was voluntary. We agree that the court applied an incorrect standard and that the presentment agency was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent’s statement was voluntary (People v Rosa, 65 NY2d 380, 386). However, we make our own findings from the record of the suppression hearing, pursuant to CPL 470.15 (1), that respondent’s statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and that questioning stopped as soon as his mother said that she wanted him to have an attorney. Respondent’s contention that the testimony of accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated is without merit; his admission that he participated in the theft, as testified to by Officer Wilcox, is sufficient corroboration (see, People v Burgin, 40 NY2d 953, 954; People v Rushlow, 94 AD2d 933). We have examined respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J. — juvenile delinquency.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 922, 518 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-b-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack