Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Crimmins

People v. Crimmins

479 N.E.2d 224, 64 N.Y.2d 1072, 489 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14224
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 25, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 479 N.E.2d 224 (People v. Crimmins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Crimmins, 479 N.E.2d 224, 64 N.Y.2d 1072, 489 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14224 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The court in submitting the voluntariness of the confession to the jury did not err in refusing to charge that the police had an obligation to let family members or friends communicate with a competent adult in custody (cf. People v Townsend, 33 NY2d 37; People v Bevilacqua, 45 NY2d 508; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Fuschino, 59 NY2d 91). We note that there was no evidence that these persons had retained counsel for the defendant. Nor was there any evidence that the defendant sought the assistance of these individuals or that the police discouraged him from doing so. There was only testimony that certain family members sought unsuccessfully to communicate with the defendant while he was being questioned by the police. Therefore the court’s refusal to give the charge requested by defense counsel did not constitute error.

The defendant also contends that the court erred during the suppression hearing in refusing to make factual findings as to whether the police isolated the defendant from family and friends seeking to communicate with him while he was being questioned. However, the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of such findings. The suppression court assumed for the purposes of the motion the essential truth of the defendant’s evidence and nevertheless found the confession was voluntary, as did the Appellate Division by its affirmance on this mixed question of law and fact.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Jabaut
111 A.D.3d 1140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Sanabria
52 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Myers
17 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Krivak
265 A.D.2d 343 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Rogers
247 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Sticht
226 A.D.2d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Page
225 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Salaam
629 N.E.2d 371 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Platten
175 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Mintiks v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'n
153 A.D.2d 133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Hamilton
138 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Strawder
134 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Wilmot-Kay
134 Misc. 2d 1081 (Brighton Justice Court, 1987)
People v. Ingram
117 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Casiano
117 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Spivack
111 A.D.2d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Davis
128 Misc. 2d 782 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
479 N.E.2d 224, 64 N.Y.2d 1072, 489 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 14224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crimmins-ny-1985.