People v. Reynolds

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Reynolds

324 N.E.2d 548, 35 N.Y.2d 937, 365 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1090

DecidedDecember 20, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 324 N.E.2d 548 (People v. Reynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Reynolds, 324 N.E.2d 548, 35 N.Y.2d 937, 365 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1090 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The courts below have found as a fact that the statements made by the defendant to the police were voluntary and not the product of custodial interrogation. Our review on this issue is thus limited to the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing court’s finding (People v. Yukl, 25 N Y 2d 585; People v. Boone, 22 N Y 2d 476). Since the record supports this affirmed finding of fact, it is binding on this court (People v. Leonti, 18 N Y 2d 384). During the course of defendant’s statements to the police, given following adequate Miranda warnings, he revealed that he had a gun, for the illegal possession of which he was found guilty by a jury, secreted in the glove compartment of his automobile. In these circumstances, suppression of the gun was properly denied.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, G-abrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The courts below have found as a fact that the statements made by the defendant to the police were voluntary and not the product of custodial interrogation. Our review on this issue is thus limited to the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing court’s finding (People v. Yukl, 25 N Y 2d 585; People v. Boone, 22 N Y 2d 476). Since the record supports this affirmed finding of fact, it is binding on this court (People v. Leonti, 18 N Y 2d 384). During the course of defendant’s statements to the police, given following adequate Miranda warnings, he revealed that he had a gun, for the illegal possession of which he was found guilty by a jury, secreted in the glove compartment of his automobile. In these circumstances, suppression of the gun was properly denied.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, G-abrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.E.2d 548, 35 N.Y.2d 937, 365 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reynolds-ny-1974.