People v. Patterson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Patterson

422 N.E.2d 817, 53 N.Y.2d 829, 440 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2422

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 422 N.E.2d 817 (People v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Patterson, 422 N.E.2d 817, 53 N.Y.2d 829, 440 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2422 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

[831]*831OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Examination of the record discloses that defendant’s motion to suppress his statements made to the police was predicated solely on the contention that the statements had not been made voluntarily and that their introduction in evidence would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self incrimination. There are affirmed factual determinations that the statements were voluntarily made, that constitutional preinterrogation warnings were duly given when required, and that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. This circumstance places defendant’s contentions on this ground beyond the reach of our appellate review inasmuch as the affirmed findings are not infected with error as a matter of law.

The contention now advanced that the statements should be suppressed because they were taken in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure has not been preserved for our review.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

[831]*831OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Examination of the record discloses that defendant’s motion to suppress his statements made to the police was predicated solely on the contention that the statements had not been made voluntarily and that their introduction in evidence would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self incrimination. There are affirmed factual determinations that the statements were voluntarily made, that constitutional preinterrogation warnings were duly given when required, and that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. This circumstance places defendant’s contentions on this ground beyond the reach of our appellate review inasmuch as the affirmed findings are not infected with error as a matter of law.

The contention now advanced that the statements should be suppressed because they were taken in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure has not been preserved for our review.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 N.E.2d 817, 53 N.Y.2d 829, 440 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-patterson-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack