People v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rohan

123 A.D.2d 798, 507 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60937

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 798 (People v. Rohan) 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. Rohan, 123 A.D.2d 798, 507 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of his statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

• We agree with the hearing court’s refusal to suppress a custodial statement which was made by the defendant spontaneously and not in response to any police interrogation (see, People v Bretts, 111 AD2d 864; cf. People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316).

The proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and uncontroverted and we reject his contention that any errors occurred during the trial which require reversal. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of his statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

• We agree with the hearing court’s refusal to suppress a custodial statement which was made by the defendant spontaneously and not in response to any police interrogation (see, People v Bretts, 111 AD2d 864; cf. People v Ferro, 63 NY2d 316).

The proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and uncontroverted and we reject his contention that any errors occurred during the trial which require reversal. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 798, 507 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rohan-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack