People v. King

New York Court of Appeals

People v. King

463 N.E.2d 616, 61 N.Y.2d 969, 475 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4192

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 463 N.E.2d 616 (People v. King) 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. King, 463 N.E.2d 616, 61 N.Y.2d 969, 475 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4192 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[971]*971The Trial Judge found that defendant’s cotenant consented to the entry of the detectives into the apartment but that neither she nor anyone else consented to their entry into defendant’s bedroom. That finding, having been implicitly affirmed by the Appellate Division’s memorandum, is beyond our power of review (People v Volpe, 60 NY2d 803; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1032).

Defendant’s arrest having been illegal, the question whether his statement made at the precinct station within three hours thereafter was the fruit of the illegal arrest presented a mixed question of law and fact, which is also beyond our power to review (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470; see Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590; People v Matos, 93 AD2d 772; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 11.4, p 256, 1984 Pocket Part).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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