People v. Murriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murriel

134 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50835

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Murriel) 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. Murriel, 134 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barshay, J.), rendered September 24, 1973, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[624]*624Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

At no time did the defendant argue before the suppression court that his statement should be suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see, Payton v New York, 445 US 573). The defendant, therefore, failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v Cornelius, 107 AD2d 757; People v Nieves, 102 AD2d 858). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barshay, J.), rendered September 24, 1973, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[624]*624Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

At no time did the defendant argue before the suppression court that his statement should be suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see, Payton v New York, 445 US 573). The defendant, therefore, failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v Cornelius, 107 AD2d 757; People v Nieves, 102 AD2d 858). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murriel-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack