People v. Ruggles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruggles

159 A.D.2d 969, 552 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 969 (People v. Ruggles) 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. Ruggles, 159 A.D.2d 969, 552 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends, for the first time on appeal, that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because they resulted from an arrest at his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (Payton v New York, 445 US 573). That issue was not raised before the suppression court and, therefore, is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888, 890; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1030-1031; see also, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858).

Further, we reject defendant’s contention that his statements should have been suppressed because his waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination was not knowing and voluntary. The record does not demonstrate any violation of defendant’s right to counsel. Defendant was given proper Miranda warnings and he did not request an attorney or invoke his right to remain silent (see, People v Burnett, 99 AD2d 786, 787). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J. — manslaughter, second degree.) Present— Denman, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends, for the first time on appeal, that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because they resulted from an arrest at his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (Payton v New York, 445 US 573). That issue was not raised before the suppression court and, therefore, is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888, 890; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1030-1031; see also, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858).

Further, we reject defendant’s contention that his statements should have been suppressed because his waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination was not knowing and voluntary. The record does not demonstrate any violation of defendant’s right to counsel. Defendant was given proper Miranda warnings and he did not request an attorney or invoke his right to remain silent (see, People v Burnett, 99 AD2d 786, 787). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J. — manslaughter, second degree.) Present— Denman, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 969, 552 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruggles-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack