People v. Speciale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Speciale

198 A.D.2d 811, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 811 (People v. Speciale) 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. Speciale, 198 A.D.2d 811, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to raise the invalidity of the arrest warrant as a ground for suppression of his later statement and of the victim’s identification testimony, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review (see, People v Fenner, 61 NY2d 971, 973; People v Hall, 61 NY2d 834, 835; People v Cintron, 118 AD2d 650; People v Arnette, 111 AD2d 861, 862, lv denied 65 NY2d 976). The record of the suppression hearing amply supports the suppression court’s conclusion that defendant’s statement was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. We conclude that defendant’s conviction for sodomy in the first degree is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.— Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to raise the invalidity of the arrest warrant as a ground for suppression of his later statement and of the victim’s identification testimony, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review (see, People v Fenner, 61 NY2d 971, 973; People v Hall, 61 NY2d 834, 835; People v Cintron, 118 AD2d 650; People v Arnette, 111 AD2d 861, 862, lv denied 65 NY2d 976). The record of the suppression hearing amply supports the suppression court’s conclusion that defendant’s statement was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. We conclude that defendant’s conviction for sodomy in the first degree is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.— Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 811, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-speciale-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack