People v. Mayorga

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Mayorga

476 N.E.2d 993, 64 N.Y.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15909

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 993 (People v. Mayorga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mayorga, 476 N.E.2d 993, 64 N.Y.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15909 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed.

Our review of the opinion of the Appellate Division reveals that its conclusion, contrary to that of County Court, was that defendant’s last two statements were the result of such “ ‘continuous interrogation’ that the Miranda warnings subsequently administered ‘were insufficient to protect his rights’ ” and that there was no such “ ‘definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning’ ”. (100 AD2d, at p 854.)

Whether there has been an attenuating break in an interrogation is, as are most other determinations made in suppression matters which require the drawing of inferences from the facts, a mixed question of law and fact (cf. People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477-478; People v Karabinas, 63 NY2d 871; People v Albro, 52 NY2d 619, 623). Because the determination of the Appellate Division in this case was not “on the law alone or upon the law [866]*866and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), this appeal does not lie.

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed.

Our review of the opinion of the Appellate Division reveals that its conclusion, contrary to that of County Court, was that defendant’s last two statements were the result of such “ ‘continuous interrogation’ that the Miranda warnings subsequently administered ‘were insufficient to protect his rights’ ” and that there was no such “ ‘definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning’ ”. (100 AD2d, at p 854.)

Whether there has been an attenuating break in an interrogation is, as are most other determinations made in suppression matters which require the drawing of inferences from the facts, a mixed question of law and fact (cf. People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477-478; People v Karabinas, 63 NY2d 871; People v Albro, 52 NY2d 619, 623). Because the determination of the Appellate Division in this case was not “on the law alone or upon the law [866]*866and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), this appeal does not lie.

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 N.E.2d 993, 64 N.Y.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayorga-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack