People v. Marzan

161 A.D.2d 416, 555 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 416 (People v. Marzan) 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. Marzan, 161 A.D.2d 416, 555 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J., at hearing, trial and sentence), rendered April 28, 1987, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 4 to 12 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant violently attacked the complainant with a baseball bat. The complainant suffered serious injuries which included the loss of an eye. Two weeks following the filing of the complaint, detectives knocked on the defendant’s door, asked him to come outside into the apartment building’s hallway, and arrested him. The detectives did not have an arrest warrant. En route to Central Booking, and before Miranda warnings were given, the defendant spontaneously made a statement that was used at trial.

Defendant contends that this arrest, without warrant, was improper, and therefore the subsequent statement should have been inadmissible under the exclusionary rule of Payton v New York (445 US 573). However, we find the defendant’s argument meritless, the arrest proper, and that the statement was properly admitted into evidence at trial.

A Payton violation did not occur because the defendant was arrested in the apartment building’s hallway and not in his apartment. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recently held in Harris v New York (495 US —, —, 109 L Ed 2d 13, 22) that "where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton”. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

The People v. Sean Garvin
New York Court of Appeals, 2017
People v. Morales
250 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Gordon
176 Misc. 2d 46 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Mauceri v. County of Suffolk
234 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Jacobo
208 A.D.2d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Riley
202 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Coppin
202 A.D.2d 279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Siler
197 A.D.2d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Garriga
189 A.D.2d 236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Rosario
186 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Jacobo
154 Misc. 2d 540 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. Lewis
172 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 A.D.2d 416, 555 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marzan-nyappdiv-1990.