People v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Turner

200 A.D.2d 603, 606 N.Y.S.2d 276

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 603 (People v. Turner) 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. Turner, 200 A.D.2d 603, 606 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), rendered May 1, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[604]*604Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant next claims that statements made by him to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed because they were procured without advising him of his Miranda rights and as a result of police beatings. The hearing court’s denial of suppression was proper. The record demonstrates that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and then made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights (see, Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458; People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285; People v Sanchez, 133 AD2d 384). His claim that he was physically abused by the police officers is contradicted by the police testimony, by his failure to seek medical attention, and by his appearance and demeanor during the videotaped statement (see, People v Diaz, 177 AD2d 500; People v Sanchez, 133 AD2d 384, supra). The voluntariness of the defendant’s statements presented an issue of credibility and the court’s determination of that issue, which is fully supported by the record, should not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v Diaz, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, 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, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), rendered May 1, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[604]*604Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant next claims that statements made by him to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed because they were procured without advising him of his Miranda rights and as a result of police beatings. The hearing court’s denial of suppression was proper. The record demonstrates that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and then made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights (see, Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458; People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285; People v Sanchez, 133 AD2d 384). His claim that he was physically abused by the police officers is contradicted by the police testimony, by his failure to seek medical attention, and by his appearance and demeanor during the videotaped statement (see, People v Diaz, 177 AD2d 500; People v Sanchez, 133 AD2d 384, supra). The voluntariness of the defendant’s statements presented an issue of credibility and the court’s determination of that issue, which is fully supported by the record, should not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v Diaz, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 603, 606 N.Y.S.2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-turner-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack