People v. Van Buren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Buren

115 A.D.2d 185, 495 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54438

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 185 (People v. Van Buren) 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. Van Buren, 115 A.D.2d 185, 495 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

lant. Yesawich, Jr.,

J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered July 31, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted burglary in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the second degree (one count) and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts).

The single issue presented by this appeal is the propriety of County Court’s refusal to suppress certain oral and written inculpatory statements made by defendant prior to his arraignment. Defendant contends that the delay, without more, of from 5 to 7 hours between the time of his arrest and his arraignment was unnecessary and vitiates the admissibility of confessions made by him during that period. The People maintain that there was no unnecessary delay, that State Police investigators had taken defendant’s voluntary statement during the interim period, arrested the accomplice implicated by defendant and unravelled their confessions relating to their involvement in four separate burglaries. It was undisputed that on three occasions defendant was apprised of his right to remain silent and to have an attorney present, and that each time, immediately before incriminating himself, defendant waived his Miranda rights. Nowhere is it claimed that the confessions were coerced. The denial of defendant’s suppression motion prompted this appeal.

Even assuming that the delay in arraignment was unnecessary, it is settled that, absent extraordinary circumstances, such delay is but a factor to be considered on an issue of underlying involuntariness (People v Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079, 1081). Suppression for that reason is unwarranted unless there is evidence of improper conduct or that undue pressure impaired defendant’s ability to choose between silence and loquacity (People v Doyle, 13 AD2d 605, cert denied 368 US 935). No such showing has been made here.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

lant. Yesawich, Jr.,

J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered July 31, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted burglary in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the second degree (one count) and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts).

The single issue presented by this appeal is the propriety of County Court’s refusal to suppress certain oral and written inculpatory statements made by defendant prior to his arraignment. Defendant contends that the delay, without more, of from 5 to 7 hours between the time of his arrest and his arraignment was unnecessary and vitiates the admissibility of confessions made by him during that period. The People maintain that there was no unnecessary delay, that State Police investigators had taken defendant’s voluntary statement during the interim period, arrested the accomplice implicated by defendant and unravelled their confessions relating to their involvement in four separate burglaries. It was undisputed that on three occasions defendant was apprised of his right to remain silent and to have an attorney present, and that each time, immediately before incriminating himself, defendant waived his Miranda rights. Nowhere is it claimed that the confessions were coerced. The denial of defendant’s suppression motion prompted this appeal.

Even assuming that the delay in arraignment was unnecessary, it is settled that, absent extraordinary circumstances, such delay is but a factor to be considered on an issue of underlying involuntariness (People v Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079, 1081). Suppression for that reason is unwarranted unless there is evidence of improper conduct or that undue pressure impaired defendant’s ability to choose between silence and loquacity (People v Doyle, 13 AD2d 605, cert denied 368 US 935). No such showing has been made here.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 185, 495 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-buren-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack