People v. Fuhrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fuhrer

154 A.D.2d 942, 545 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13078

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 942 (People v. Fuhrer) 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. Fuhrer, 154 A.D.2d 942, 545 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court’s determination that the statements defendant made to the police were voluntary is supported by the record. Defendant does not challenge the admissions he made at the scene of the accident prior to being advised of his Miranda rights. These investigatory inquiries did not constitute custodial interrogation to which Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436) applies (People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891, 893; People v Sullivan, 149 AD2d 968). With respect to defendant’s other admissions made at the hospital after he had been advised of his Miranda rights, we find no evidence in the record to support defendant’s claim that the injuries he sustained in the accident prevented him from knowingly and voluntarily waiving his rights (see, People v Hall, 122 AD2d 163; People v Pearson, 106 AD2d 588).

We have reviewed the other claims raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of [943]*943Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — assault, second degree; driving while ability impaired.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court’s determination that the statements defendant made to the police were voluntary is supported by the record. Defendant does not challenge the admissions he made at the scene of the accident prior to being advised of his Miranda rights. These investigatory inquiries did not constitute custodial interrogation to which Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436) applies (People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891, 893; People v Sullivan, 149 AD2d 968). With respect to defendant’s other admissions made at the hospital after he had been advised of his Miranda rights, we find no evidence in the record to support defendant’s claim that the injuries he sustained in the accident prevented him from knowingly and voluntarily waiving his rights (see, People v Hall, 122 AD2d 163; People v Pearson, 106 AD2d 588).

We have reviewed the other claims raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of [943]*943Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — assault, second degree; driving while ability impaired.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 942, 545 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fuhrer-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack