People v. Ludlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ludlow

187 A.D.2d 936, 592 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13927

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 936 (People v. Ludlow) 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. Ludlow, 187 A.D.2d 936, 592 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record supports County Court’s [937]*937firiding that defendant, despite his limited intellectual capacity, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak to the police (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 287; People v Matthews, 148 AD2d 272, 274, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 950). The record also supports the suppression court’s determination that defendant was not in custody before the Miranda warnings were given. A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed he was in custody under the circumstances (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837, 838; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 US 851). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record supports County Court’s [937]*937firiding that defendant, despite his limited intellectual capacity, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak to the police (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 287; People v Matthews, 148 AD2d 272, 274, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 950). The record also supports the suppression court’s determination that defendant was not in custody before the Miranda warnings were given. A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed he was in custody under the circumstances (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837, 838; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 US 851). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 936, 592 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ludlow-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack