People v. Nance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nance

167 A.D.2d 948, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 948 (People v. Nance) 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. Nance, 167 A.D.2d 948, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence before the hearing court fully supports the finding that defendant’s pre-Miranda oral statements (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) were voluntarily given and were not the product of a custodial interrogation (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, mot to amend remittitur denied 26 NY2d 845, cert denied 400 US 851; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 910-911). Thus, defendant’s contention that his subsequent written statement, made after he was given his Miranda warnings, must be suppressed because the statement was "not sufficiently attenuated from” his oral statements is without merit (cf., People v Chapple, 38 NY2d [949]*949112). Contrary to defendant’s contention, a custodial environment was not created when the police asked defendant’s brother, who accompanied him to the police station, to remain in the hall during the police interview. The record discloses no deception or other deliberate action by the police to isolate defendant from his brother in order to obtain incriminating statements (see, People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826). Furthermore, the record supports the finding that the knife was retrieved from defendant’s apartment pursuant to his voluntary consent to search (see, People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290). Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence before the hearing court fully supports the finding that defendant’s pre-Miranda oral statements (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) were voluntarily given and were not the product of a custodial interrogation (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589, mot to amend remittitur denied 26 NY2d 845, cert denied 400 US 851; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 910-911). Thus, defendant’s contention that his subsequent written statement, made after he was given his Miranda warnings, must be suppressed because the statement was "not sufficiently attenuated from” his oral statements is without merit (cf., People v Chapple, 38 NY2d [949]*949112). Contrary to defendant’s contention, a custodial environment was not created when the police asked defendant’s brother, who accompanied him to the police station, to remain in the hall during the police interview. The record discloses no deception or other deliberate action by the police to isolate defendant from his brother in order to obtain incriminating statements (see, People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826). Furthermore, the record supports the finding that the knife was retrieved from defendant’s apartment pursuant to his voluntary consent to search (see, People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290). Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 948, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nance-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack