People v. Berkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Berkel

97 A.D.3d 836, 948 N.Y.2d 677

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.3d 836 (People v. Berkel) 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. Berkel, 97 A.D.3d 836, 948 N.Y.2d 677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly concluded that she was not in custody when she made certain statements to detectives (see People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837, 838 [1990]; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]) and, therefore, that the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445 [1966]) was not required during the interview.

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s ruling that she could be cross-examined regarding her knowledge of certain prior conduct of her son is without merit. The evidence the People sought to elicit was relevant (see People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 465 [2009]), and any prejudicial effect it may have had did not outweigh its probative value.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly concluded that she was not in custody when she made certain statements to detectives (see People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837, 838 [1990]; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]) and, therefore, that the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445 [1966]) was not required during the interview.

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s ruling that she could be cross-examined regarding her knowledge of certain prior conduct of her son is without merit. The evidence the People sought to elicit was relevant (see People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 465 [2009]), and any prejudicial effect it may have had did not outweigh its probative value.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.3d 836, 948 N.Y.2d 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berkel-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack