People v. Morse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morse

271 A.D.2d 702, 707 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4470

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Morse. Read the opinion of the Court — 294 A.D.2d 601 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme . Court, Kings County (Y. Lewis, J.), rendered March 26, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant uttered an inculpatory statement immediately after a detective read the Miranda warnings and informed him that he was arrested for carjacking (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). The detective’s brief, declarative statement cannot reasonably be construed as likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, People v Porter, 251 AD2d 601; People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531; People v McAdoo, 166 AD2d 674). Thus, the hearing court properly determined that the defendant’s statement was voluntary and spontaneous. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme . Court, Kings County (Y. Lewis, J.), rendered March 26, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant uttered an inculpatory statement immediately after a detective read the Miranda warnings and informed him that he was arrested for carjacking (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). The detective’s brief, declarative statement cannot reasonably be construed as likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, People v Porter, 251 AD2d 601; People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531; People v McAdoo, 166 AD2d 674). Thus, the hearing court properly determined that the defendant’s statement was voluntary and spontaneous. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Morse, 271 A.D.2d 702, 707 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 702 (People v. Morse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related