People v. Occelin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Occelin

57 A.D.3d 292, 868 N.Y.2d 525

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 292 (People v. Occelin) 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. Occelin, 57 A.D.3d 292, 868 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), including its finding that defendant orally waived his Miranda rights prior to any questioning. The totality of the circumstances establishes that the statements were voluntarily [293]*293made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). The record refutes defendant’s claim that the voluntariness of his statements was impaired by an injury he sustained at the time of the crime and by his alleged lack of sleep; the hearing evidence included, among other things, detailed testimony as to his demeanor when he was interviewed, as well as evidence that he had no difficulty writing a lengthy statement. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), including its finding that defendant orally waived his Miranda rights prior to any questioning. The totality of the circumstances establishes that the statements were voluntarily [293]*293made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). The record refutes defendant’s claim that the voluntariness of his statements was impaired by an injury he sustained at the time of the crime and by his alleged lack of sleep; the hearing evidence included, among other things, detailed testimony as to his demeanor when he was interviewed, as well as evidence that he had no difficulty writing a lengthy statement. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 292, 868 N.Y.2d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-occelin-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack