People v. Straughter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Straughter

152 A.D.2d 919, 544 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9760

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 919 (People v. Straughter) 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. Straughter, 152 A.D.2d 919, 544 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly ruled that defendant’s oral statements to the police were not in response to police questioning and that they were preceded by Miranda warnings. Although evidence of the station house showup should have been suppressed (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 530), the suppression court properly found that there was an independent source for the identification because the victim was able to observe the defendant for several minutes prior to the theft (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98, 110; People v Riley, supra, at 531; People v Graham, 67 AD2d 172, 177). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, [920]*920Wolfgang, J. — grand larceny, second degree; burglary, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly ruled that defendant’s oral statements to the police were not in response to police questioning and that they were preceded by Miranda warnings. Although evidence of the station house showup should have been suppressed (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 530), the suppression court properly found that there was an independent source for the identification because the victim was able to observe the defendant for several minutes prior to the theft (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98, 110; People v Riley, supra, at 531; People v Graham, 67 AD2d 172, 177). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, [920]*920Wolfgang, J. — grand larceny, second degree; burglary, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 919, 544 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-straughter-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack