People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diaz

291 A.D.2d 409, 736 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 409 (People v. Diaz) 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. Diaz, 291 A.D.2d 409, 736 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated January 18, 2001, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The People have the initial burden of establishing that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 486; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38; cf., People v Zephir, 226 AD2d 408; People v Smith, 220 AD2d 704). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the hearing court that the People failed to satisfy their burden. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated January 18, 2001, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The People have the initial burden of establishing that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 486; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38; cf., People v Zephir, 226 AD2d 408; People v Smith, 220 AD2d 704). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the hearing court that the People failed to satisfy their burden. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 409, 736 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diaz-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack