People v. Palmiere
This text of 124 A.D.2d 1016 (People v. Palmiere) 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.
Opinion
Memorandum: The police officer’s questioning of defendant at the scene of an accident about what happened, who owned the car, and whether he was drinking was investigatory, not custodial, interrogation (see, People v Aia, 105 AD2d 592, 593; People v Brown, 104 AD2d 696, 697; People v Gardell, 59 AD2d 929). Defendant’s later statement, made after Miranda warnings, was not tainted by the prior interrogation and was correctly found to be admissible.
We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — driving while intoxicated, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
124 A.D.2d 1016, 508 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palmiere-nyappdiv-1986.