People v. Vaughan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vaughan

273 A.D.2d 99, 710 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6624

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 99 (People v. Vaughan) 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. Vaughan, 273 A.D.2d 99, 710 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [100]*100Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J., at hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 18, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his first statement to the police should have been suppressed because it was not preceded by Miranda warnings (see, People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that Miranda warnings were not required since defendant was not in custody when the officer asked him the single question of why he was in the building and since the limited questioning did not constitute interrogation, “but rather an opportunity for defendant to clarify the situation” (People v Weston, 234 AD2d 90, lv denied 89 NY2d 989; see also, People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; People v Fong, 233 AD2d 115, lv denied 89 NY2d 942). Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights immediately after his arrest, his subsequent statements were also admissible. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, [100]*100Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J., at hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 18, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his first statement to the police should have been suppressed because it was not preceded by Miranda warnings (see, People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that Miranda warnings were not required since defendant was not in custody when the officer asked him the single question of why he was in the building and since the limited questioning did not constitute interrogation, “but rather an opportunity for defendant to clarify the situation” (People v Weston, 234 AD2d 90, lv denied 89 NY2d 989; see also, People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; People v Fong, 233 AD2d 115, lv denied 89 NY2d 942). Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights immediately after his arrest, his subsequent statements were also admissible. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 99, 710 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vaughan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack