People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawrence

116 A.D.2d 664, 497 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48197

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 664 (People v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 116 A.D.2d 664, 497 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), rendered March 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing [665]*665sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leahy, J.), of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that the statements made by defendant while in custody after his arrest were spontaneous and were not made in response to any police interrogation. The record establishes that the police did not question defendant about the attempted burglary or engage in any conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from him (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291; People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 2700; People v Bryant, 59 NY2d 786). Defendant’s statements were therefore admissible. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), rendered March 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing [665]*665sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leahy, J.), of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that the statements made by defendant while in custody after his arrest were spontaneous and were not made in response to any police interrogation. The record establishes that the police did not question defendant about the attempted burglary or engage in any conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from him (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291; People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 2700; People v Bryant, 59 NY2d 786). Defendant’s statements were therefore admissible. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 664, 497 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack