People v. Lathrop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lathrop

127 A.D.2d 1003, 513 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43507

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 1003 (People v. Lathrop) 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. Lathrop, 127 A.D.2d 1003, 513 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that his conviction should be reversed because the court erroneously [1004]*1004reopened the suppression hearing. The only issue raised by defendant in his motion papers was that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because he was not advised of his rights. At the hearing, a policeman testified without contradiction that he informed defendant of his rights and that defendant waived them before he gave the statement. After the hearing was closed, the court, on its own motion, reopened the hearing to receive testimony on the issue of probable cause. Because defendant did not raise the issue of probable cause in his motion papers, it was not incumbent upon the District Attorney to address that issue at the hearing. Thus, defendant was not prejudiced by the reopening.

We have reviewed the remaining issues and we conclude that they do not warrant reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Hurlbutt, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that his conviction should be reversed because the court erroneously [1004]*1004reopened the suppression hearing. The only issue raised by defendant in his motion papers was that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because he was not advised of his rights. At the hearing, a policeman testified without contradiction that he informed defendant of his rights and that defendant waived them before he gave the statement. After the hearing was closed, the court, on its own motion, reopened the hearing to receive testimony on the issue of probable cause. Because defendant did not raise the issue of probable cause in his motion papers, it was not incumbent upon the District Attorney to address that issue at the hearing. Thus, defendant was not prejudiced by the reopening.

We have reviewed the remaining issues and we conclude that they do not warrant reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Hurlbutt, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 1003, 513 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lathrop-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack