People v. Kuplen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kuplen

231 A.D.2d 739, 647 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 739 (People v. Kuplen) 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. Kuplen, 231 A.D.2d 739, 647 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by [740]*740the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered August 9, 1995, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress, inter alia, his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Upon being advised of his right to have an attorney present, the defendant asked the arresting detective if he thought the defendant needed an attorney. The defendant concedes that this question did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel (see, People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203; People v Diaz, 161 AD2d 789). We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his subsequent waiver of the right to counsel was the result of misleading or overbearing conduct by the detective (see, People v Ward, 134 AD2d 544).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by [740]*740the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered August 9, 1995, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress, inter alia, his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Upon being advised of his right to have an attorney present, the defendant asked the arresting detective if he thought the defendant needed an attorney. The defendant concedes that this question did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel (see, People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203; People v Diaz, 161 AD2d 789). We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his subsequent waiver of the right to counsel was the result of misleading or overbearing conduct by the detective (see, People v Ward, 134 AD2d 544).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 739, 647 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kuplen-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack