People v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reed

103 A.D.2d 998, 478 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19669

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 998 (People v. Reed) 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. Reed, 103 A.D.2d 998, 478 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court erred in stating that at a hearing to be held during the course of the [999]*999trial, defendant would have the burden of proving that his prior statement was involuntary (People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012; People v Holland, 48 NY2d 861). At the trial, before a different Judge, defendant did not renew his motion for a hearing on the voluntariness issue and he now claims that the erroneous ruling of the suppression court discouraged him from testifying on his own behalf. The statement of the suppression court was not binding on defendant (People v Palumbo, 79 AD2d 518, affd 53 NY2d 894) and, in any event, at trial, counsel stated that defendant would not testify because of the court’s Sandoval ruling. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J., at trial; Boomer, J., on motion to suppress — robbery, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court erred in stating that at a hearing to be held during the course of the [999]*999trial, defendant would have the burden of proving that his prior statement was involuntary (People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012; People v Holland, 48 NY2d 861). At the trial, before a different Judge, defendant did not renew his motion for a hearing on the voluntariness issue and he now claims that the erroneous ruling of the suppression court discouraged him from testifying on his own behalf. The statement of the suppression court was not binding on defendant (People v Palumbo, 79 AD2d 518, affd 53 NY2d 894) and, in any event, at trial, counsel stated that defendant would not testify because of the court’s Sandoval ruling. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J., at trial; Boomer, J., on motion to suppress — robbery, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 998, 478 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reed-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack