People v. Bulmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bulmer

125 A.D.2d 484, 509 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62782

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 484 (People v. Bulmer) 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. Bulmer, 125 A.D.2d 484, 509 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), rendered April 27, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), robbery in the first degree, and attempted rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his confession.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that there was sufficient attenuation between the original illegal seizure of the defendant and his subsequent confession to warrant denial of his motion to suppress his confession.

The defendant’s other allegations of error are insufficient to warrant reversal. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), rendered April 27, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), robbery in the first degree, and attempted rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his confession.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that there was sufficient attenuation between the original illegal seizure of the defendant and his subsequent confession to warrant denial of his motion to suppress his confession.

The defendant’s other allegations of error are insufficient to warrant reversal. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 484, 509 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bulmer-nyappdiv-1986.