People v. Renis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Renis

94 A.D.2d 728, 462 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18174

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

DecidedMay 9, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Renis) 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. Renis, 94 A.D.2d 728, 462 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered March 17, 1980, convicting him of two counts each of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The only question raised on this appeal is whether the defendant’s statements and certain physical evidence should have been suppressed. The hearing court found by “clear and convincing evidence” that suppression should be denied. Though we are in agreement with the hearing court’s denial of suppression, we would note that the People’s burden of proof was to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the statements were voluntary (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72, 78). It is our opinion that the People have adequately satisfied that burden. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered March 17, 1980, convicting him of two counts each of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The only question raised on this appeal is whether the defendant’s statements and certain physical evidence should have been suppressed. The hearing court found by “clear and convincing evidence” that suppression should be denied. Though we are in agreement with the hearing court’s denial of suppression, we would note that the People’s burden of proof was to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the statements were voluntary (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72, 78). It is our opinion that the People have adequately satisfied that burden. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 728, 462 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-renis-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack