People v. Tomlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tomlin

265 A.D.2d 353, 696 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 353 (People v. Tomlin) 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. Tomlin, 265 A.D.2d 353, 696 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered January 7, 1998, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, assault in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dabiri, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his pre-Miranda statement should have been suppressed is without merit. The defendant’s statement that he hit his girlfriend was a spontaneous statement and, therefore, admissible (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294; People v Harrison, 251 AD2d 681).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered January 7, 1998, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, assault in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dabiri, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his pre-Miranda statement should have been suppressed is without merit. The defendant’s statement that he hit his girlfriend was a spontaneous statement and, therefore, admissible (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294; People v Harrison, 251 AD2d 681).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 353, 696 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tomlin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack