People v. Ball

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ball

222 A.D.2d 598, 635 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 598 (People v. Ball) 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

People v. Ball, 222 A.D.2d 598, 635 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered May 28, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to the police and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The 13-year-old defendant was convicted of murder after he confessed to shooting the victim in a dispute concerning the victim’s cousin. On appeal, he argues, inter alia, that the court improperly admitted his videotaped confession. We disagree.

The defendant was questioned about the shooting at various times over a three-day period. He admitted to bringing a gun owned by his father to the scene, but initially denied firing that gun. The defendant denied involvement in the shooting until the last day of questioning, June 26, 1990, after learning that ballistic tests revealed that his father’s gun was in fact [599]*599the murder weapon. Before the confession was secured, however, the defendant, in the presence of his parents, was read his Miranda rights which he then waived. We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions on appeal that, inter alia, the confession of June 26, 1990, was in any way "tainted” or rendered involuntary by any prior statement made by the defendant under duress or in violation of his constitutional rights (see, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102; People v McIntyre, 138 AD2d 634), and that his parents, who were present during questioning, were acting as agents for the police in securing the inculpatory admissions (see, People v Ray, 65 NY2d 282; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 528). Accordingly, suppression of the confession was properly denied (see, People v Tankleff, 199 AD2d 550).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered May 28, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to the police and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The 13-year-old defendant was convicted of murder after he confessed to shooting the victim in a dispute concerning the victim’s cousin. On appeal, he argues, inter alia, that the court improperly admitted his videotaped confession. We disagree.

The defendant was questioned about the shooting at various times over a three-day period. He admitted to bringing a gun owned by his father to the scene, but initially denied firing that gun. The defendant denied involvement in the shooting until the last day of questioning, June 26, 1990, after learning that ballistic tests revealed that his father’s gun was in fact [599]*599the murder weapon. Before the confession was secured, however, the defendant, in the presence of his parents, was read his Miranda rights which he then waived. We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions on appeal that, inter alia, the confession of June 26, 1990, was in any way "tainted” or rendered involuntary by any prior statement made by the defendant under duress or in violation of his constitutional rights (see, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102; People v McIntyre, 138 AD2d 634), and that his parents, who were present during questioning, were acting as agents for the police in securing the inculpatory admissions (see, People v Ray, 65 NY2d 282; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 528). Accordingly, suppression of the confession was properly denied (see, People v Tankleff, 199 AD2d 550).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 598, 635 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ball-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack