People v. Deary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Deary

212 A.D.2d 960, 623 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 960 (People v. Deary) 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. Deary, 212 A.D.2d 960, 623 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the confession he made on January 21, 1993 should have been suppressed. The suppression court’s determination that the confession was not obtained in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331; People v Winburn, 177 AD2d 961, Iv denied 79 NY2d 834) and was voluntarily given, after defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289), is supported by the record and should not be disturbed. We further reject the contention of defendant that the statement he made to the police on August 20, 1992 was involuntarily made. The record supports the suppression court’s determination that defendant was not in custody at the time he made that statement (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 US 851; see also, People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33). Lastly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to charge the jury that [961]*961the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific type of knife used in the homicide. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the confession he made on January 21, 1993 should have been suppressed. The suppression court’s determination that the confession was not obtained in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331; People v Winburn, 177 AD2d 961, Iv denied 79 NY2d 834) and was voluntarily given, after defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289), is supported by the record and should not be disturbed. We further reject the contention of defendant that the statement he made to the police on August 20, 1992 was involuntarily made. The record supports the suppression court’s determination that defendant was not in custody at the time he made that statement (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 US 851; see also, People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33). Lastly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to charge the jury that [961]*961the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific type of knife used in the homicide. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 960, 623 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-deary-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack