People v. Outlaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Outlaw

81 A.D.2d 796, 441 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447

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

DecidedMay 21, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 796 (People v. Outlaw) 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. Outlaw, 81 A.D.2d 796, 441 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered May 16, 1979, convicting defendant-appellant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 0 to 6 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. On the agreed statement of facts, the People commendably have consented to a reversal of the judgment, on the authority of People v Rogers (48 NY2d 167) and People v Bell (50 NY2d 869), which were decided after the trial court’s determination. Appellant’s statement was made following an uncounselled Miranda waiver at a time when the investigating detective knew or should have known that appellant was already represented by counsel in another pending robbery case. Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Carro, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered May 16, 1979, convicting defendant-appellant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 0 to 6 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. On the agreed statement of facts, the People commendably have consented to a reversal of the judgment, on the authority of People v Rogers (48 NY2d 167) and People v Bell (50 NY2d 869), which were decided after the trial court’s determination. Appellant’s statement was made following an uncounselled Miranda waiver at a time when the investigating detective knew or should have known that appellant was already represented by counsel in another pending robbery case. Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Carro, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 796, 441 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-outlaw-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack