People v. Piggott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piggott

17 A.D.3d 279, 794 N.Y.S.2d 22, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469

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

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 279 (People v. Piggott) 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. Piggott, 17 A.D.3d 279, 794 N.Y.S.2d 22, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. [280]*280Scherer, J., at suppression motion; Dorothy A. Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 12, 2002, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. The record supports the findings made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the court. None of the statements at issue was preceded by an unequivocal request for counsel or a statement by defendant that he was represented by counsel on the instant matter. In a discussion with the police concerning a planned noncustodial lineup, defendant made an equivocal reference to an attorney, and then made it clear that he was not requesting the presence of counsel at the lineup or for any other purpose (see People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845 [1988]). As for a subsequent telephone conversation between defendant and a detective, the detective’s testimony establishes that defendant’s mention of an attorney referred only to an unrelated Bronx case involving a possible outstanding warrant. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. [280]*280Scherer, J., at suppression motion; Dorothy A. Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 12, 2002, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. The record supports the findings made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the court. None of the statements at issue was preceded by an unequivocal request for counsel or a statement by defendant that he was represented by counsel on the instant matter. In a discussion with the police concerning a planned noncustodial lineup, defendant made an equivocal reference to an attorney, and then made it clear that he was not requesting the presence of counsel at the lineup or for any other purpose (see People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845 [1988]). As for a subsequent telephone conversation between defendant and a detective, the detective’s testimony establishes that defendant’s mention of an attorney referred only to an unrelated Bronx case involving a possible outstanding warrant. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 279, 794 N.Y.S.2d 22, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piggott-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack