People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holmes

82 A.D.3d 441, 917 N.Y.2d 863

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 441 (People v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 82 A.D.3d 441, 917 N.Y.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police and his videotaped statement. There was no need for the police to repeat previously administered Miranda warnings before reinterviewing defendant. The second interview came within a reasonable time after the initial warnings, and custody had remained continuous (see People v Gauger, 268 AD2d 386 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 852 [2000]). The length and circumstances of defendant’s custody were not unduly coercive. Furthermore, defendant’s statement reveals that, after realizing he had been picked out of a lineup, he freely decided to [442]*442retract his prior exculpatory statements and admit his guilt. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police and his videotaped statement. There was no need for the police to repeat previously administered Miranda warnings before reinterviewing defendant. The second interview came within a reasonable time after the initial warnings, and custody had remained continuous (see People v Gauger, 268 AD2d 386 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 852 [2000]). The length and circumstances of defendant’s custody were not unduly coercive. Furthermore, defendant’s statement reveals that, after realizing he had been picked out of a lineup, he freely decided to [442]*442retract his prior exculpatory statements and admit his guilt. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 441, 917 N.Y.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holmes-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack