People v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maddox

198 A.D.2d 804, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 804 (People v. Maddox) 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. Maddox, 198 A.D.2d 804, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant correctly contends that County Court erred in failing to charge the jury that his statement to the police would be involuntary if he had asserted his right to remain silent or had requested counsel during questioning (see, CPL 710.20 [3]; People v Griswold, 58 NY2d 633, 635; People v Graham, 55 NY2d 144). Because defendant failed to object to the court’s instruction on voluntariness, however, that error has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Roth, 139 AD2d 605, 608, lv denied 72 NY2d 866; see also, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and we decline to reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant correctly contends that County Court erred in failing to charge the jury that his statement to the police would be involuntary if he had asserted his right to remain silent or had requested counsel during questioning (see, CPL 710.20 [3]; People v Griswold, 58 NY2d 633, 635; People v Graham, 55 NY2d 144). Because defendant failed to object to the court’s instruction on voluntariness, however, that error has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Roth, 139 AD2d 605, 608, lv denied 72 NY2d 866; see also, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and we decline to reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 804, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maddox-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack