People v. Stallings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stallings

174 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 970 (People v. Stallings) 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. Stallings, 174 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further find no basis to disturb the trial court’s refusal to suppress defendant’s confession. Sufficient evidence is present in the record to support the suppression court’s finding that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, e.g., People v Miles, 115 AD2d 962, 963, lv denied 67 NY2d 654). Defendant also contends that the court’s identification charge was insufficient. Because no objection was made to the alleged error, it has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further find no basis to disturb the trial court’s refusal to suppress defendant’s confession. Sufficient evidence is present in the record to support the suppression court’s finding that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, e.g., People v Miles, 115 AD2d 962, 963, lv denied 67 NY2d 654). Defendant also contends that the court’s identification charge was insufficient. Because no objection was made to the alleged error, it has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stallings-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack