People v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Porter

251 A.D.2d 601, 673 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7471

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 601 (People v. Porter) 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. Porter, 251 A.D.2d 601, 673 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[602]*602fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered July 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Buchter, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant uttered incriminating statements after a detective told one of the defendant’s relatives that the defendant was being arrested for “gunpoint robbery”. It is apparent that the detective’s statement could not reasonably be construed as one likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291; People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795, 797). Thus, we conclude that the record supports the hearing court’s determination that the statement was spontaneously uttered and voluntary (see, People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531; People v McAdoo, 166 AD2d 674, 675).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[602]*602fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered July 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Buchter, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant uttered incriminating statements after a detective told one of the defendant’s relatives that the defendant was being arrested for “gunpoint robbery”. It is apparent that the detective’s statement could not reasonably be construed as one likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291; People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795, 797). Thus, we conclude that the record supports the hearing court’s determination that the statement was spontaneously uttered and voluntary (see, People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531; People v McAdoo, 166 AD2d 674, 675).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 601, 673 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-porter-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack