People v. Hann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hann

198 A.D.2d 904, 604 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Hann) 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. Hann, 198 A.D.2d 904, 604 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his oral statements to police should have been suppressed because he was in custody and interrogated before he received Miranda warnings. Although defendant was in custody when he made some of his oral statements, none of those statements was solicited by the police. Moreover, there is no indication that the police acted in a manner that "should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a statement from the defendant” or that the statements were not self-generating (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480, rearg denied 57 NY2d 775). Instead, the record demonstrates that defendant was eager to relate the events at issue to every police officer who came on the scene. Therefore, there is no basis for defendant’s conclusion that his statements were the product of either direct or subtle police interrogation (cf., People v Stoesser, 53 NY2d 648; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 301-303). Likewise, there is no merit to the contention of defendant that his statements [905]*905were not voluntary because he was agitated when he made them.

In view of the nature of the crime, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his oral statements to police should have been suppressed because he was in custody and interrogated before he received Miranda warnings. Although defendant was in custody when he made some of his oral statements, none of those statements was solicited by the police. Moreover, there is no indication that the police acted in a manner that "should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a statement from the defendant” or that the statements were not self-generating (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480, rearg denied 57 NY2d 775). Instead, the record demonstrates that defendant was eager to relate the events at issue to every police officer who came on the scene. Therefore, there is no basis for defendant’s conclusion that his statements were the product of either direct or subtle police interrogation (cf., People v Stoesser, 53 NY2d 648; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 301-303). Likewise, there is no merit to the contention of defendant that his statements [905]*905were not voluntary because he was agitated when he made them.

In view of the nature of the crime, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 904, 604 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hann-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack