People v. Gamble

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Gamble

519 N.E.2d 338, 70 N.Y.2d 885, 524 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19934

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 519 N.E.2d 338 (People v. Gamble) 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. Gamble, 519 N.E.2d 338, 70 N.Y.2d 885, 524 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19934 (N.Y. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed.

We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that defendant’s written confession and portions of his oral statement were obtained in violation of his right to counsel, which he invoked by his negative response when asked whether he was "willing to answer questions without an attorney present” (see, People v Carmine A., 53 NY2d 816, 818; People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203). Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly ruled that such oral and written statements should have been suppressed.

The Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s remaining statements were admissible because they were made spontaneously is not before us on this appeal inasmuch as defendant, the party aggrieved by that ruling, is not an appellant here.

[887]*887Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order insofar as appealed from affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed.

We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that defendant’s written confession and portions of his oral statement were obtained in violation of his right to counsel, which he invoked by his negative response when asked whether he was "willing to answer questions without an attorney present” (see, People v Carmine A., 53 NY2d 816, 818; People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203). Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly ruled that such oral and written statements should have been suppressed.

The Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s remaining statements were admissible because they were made spontaneously is not before us on this appeal inasmuch as defendant, the party aggrieved by that ruling, is not an appellant here.

[887]*887Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order insofar as appealed from affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 N.E.2d 338, 70 N.Y.2d 885, 524 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gamble-ny-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack