People v. Pizarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pizarro

286 A.D.2d 653, 730 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8843

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 653 (People v. Pizarro) 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. Pizarro, 286 A.D.2d 653, 730 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[654]*654Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence established that Miranda warnings were read to defendant upon his arrival at the precinct. The strategy employed by the police to obtain defendant’s presence at the precinct, and their concealment from defendant of the true purpose of the interview, does not warrant suppression since it was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process nor was it likely to induce a false confession (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

[654]*654Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence established that Miranda warnings were read to defendant upon his arrival at the precinct. The strategy employed by the police to obtain defendant’s presence at the precinct, and their concealment from defendant of the true purpose of the interview, does not warrant suppression since it was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process nor was it likely to induce a false confession (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 653, 730 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pizarro-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack