People v. Gunther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gunther

111 A.D.2d 932, 491 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50204

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

DecidedJune 24, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Gunther) 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. Gunther, 111 A.D.2d 932, 491 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered May 30, 1984, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[933]*933Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

It was not error for the court to deny a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the gun in question. Defendant voluntarily surrendered the gun to Sergeant Carlson. Therefore, there was no search conducted and the issue of suppression is nonexistent (People v Hill, 45 AD2d 1028; People v Cotton, 22 AD2d 692). Furthermore, the record supports the court’s determination that the on-the-scene inquiries of defendant did not constitute custodial interrogation but, rather, constituted a proper investigative inquiry. Therefore, the statement made by defendant during the inquiry prior to her arrest did not require suppression (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered May 30, 1984, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[933]*933Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

It was not error for the court to deny a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the gun in question. Defendant voluntarily surrendered the gun to Sergeant Carlson. Therefore, there was no search conducted and the issue of suppression is nonexistent (People v Hill, 45 AD2d 1028; People v Cotton, 22 AD2d 692). Furthermore, the record supports the court’s determination that the on-the-scene inquiries of defendant did not constitute custodial interrogation but, rather, constituted a proper investigative inquiry. Therefore, the statement made by defendant during the inquiry prior to her arrest did not require suppression (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 932, 491 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gunther-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack