People v. Bruno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bruno

290 A.D.2d 306, 735 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 306 (People v. Bruno) 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. Bruno, 290 A.D.2d 306, 735 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to suppress an oral statement and two written confessions made to the police were properly denied. All three statements were preceded by proper Miranda warnings and waivers. The brief interval between the warnings and the oral statement did not require renewed warnings (People v Irizarry, 199 AD2d 180, lv denied 83 NY2d 872). Under the totality of circumstances (see, Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38), the first written confession was not rendered involuntary by the circumstance that defendant was briefly in a state of partial undress due to the discovery of blood stains on several articles of his clothing, necessitating their removal for testing.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to suppress an oral statement and two written confessions made to the police were properly denied. All three statements were preceded by proper Miranda warnings and waivers. The brief interval between the warnings and the oral statement did not require renewed warnings (People v Irizarry, 199 AD2d 180, lv denied 83 NY2d 872). Under the totality of circumstances (see, Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38), the first written confession was not rendered involuntary by the circumstance that defendant was briefly in a state of partial undress due to the discovery of blood stains on several articles of his clothing, necessitating their removal for testing.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 306, 735 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bruno-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack