People v. Santiago

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Santiago

526 N.E.2d 36, 72 N.Y.2d 836, 530 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1135

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 526 N.E.2d 36 (People v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 526 N.E.2d 36, 72 N.Y.2d 836, 530 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1135 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court’s findings after the Huntley suppression hearing, undisturbed by the Appellate Division, included that defendant did not refuse to speak; did not request "a lawyer flat out”; was not coaxed by the prosecutor into speaking; and was "a mature, intelligent, obviously well-educated defendant” who knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel during questioning. There being evidence to support the undisturbed findings, we cannot say as a matter of law that the lower courts were wrong in concluding defendant failed to invoke his right to counsel with respect to the *838 statements by defendant to the interrogating prosecutor. The order affirming the conviction upon a verdict of guilty after the denial of suppression must be affirmed.

Defendant’s other arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court’s findings after the Huntley suppression hearing, undisturbed by the Appellate Division, included that defendant did not refuse to speak; did not request "a lawyer flat out”; was not coaxed by the prosecutor into speaking; and was "a mature, intelligent, obviously well-educated defendant” who knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel during questioning. There being evidence to support the undisturbed findings, we cannot say as a matter of law that the lower courts were wrong in concluding defendant failed to invoke his right to counsel with respect to the *838 statements by defendant to the interrogating prosecutor. The order affirming the conviction upon a verdict of guilty after the denial of suppression must be affirmed.

Defendant’s other arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 N.E.2d 36, 72 N.Y.2d 836, 530 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack