People v. Forte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Forte

59 A.D.2d 724, 398 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13701

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 1977·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal, as limited by the People’s brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1977, as, after a hearing on defendant-respondent’s motion to suppress statements made by him, granted the motion as to certain of the statements. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from. In our. opinion, the circumstances under which defendant was interrogated required that the Miranda warnings he given (cf. People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert den 400 US 851). Although the warnings were given (and tape recorded) and defendant stated that he wanted an attorney, the police turned off the tape recorder and continued to converse with him until he— in the absence of an attorney—gave incriminating statements, which were then placed on the tape recorder. The "persuading” conversation was tantamount to an interrogation (see Brewer v Williams, 430 US 387), and was in violation of defendant’s Miranda right to have the interrogation cease once he had stated that he wanted an attorney (see People v Jackson, 41 NY2d 146). Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal, as limited by the People’s brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1977, as, after a hearing on defendant-respondent’s motion to suppress statements made by him, granted the motion as to certain of the statements. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from. In our. opinion, the circumstances under which defendant was interrogated required that the Miranda warnings he given (cf. People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert den 400 US 851). Although the warnings were given (and tape recorded) and defendant stated that he wanted an attorney, the police turned off the tape recorder and continued to converse with him until he— in the absence of an attorney—gave incriminating statements, which were then placed on the tape recorder. The "persuading” conversation was tantamount to an interrogation (see Brewer v Williams, 430 US 387), and was in violation of defendant’s Miranda right to have the interrogation cease once he had stated that he wanted an attorney (see People v Jackson, 41 NY2d 146). Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

People v. Forte, 59 A.D.2d 724, 398 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

59 A.D.2d 724 (People v. Forte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related