People v. Willette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Willette

87 A.D.2d 642, 448 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15967

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 642 (People v. Willette) 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. Willette, 87 A.D.2d 642, 448 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), rendered November 23,1979, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree (to cover Indictment Nos. 2224/78 and 1313/78), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The judgment brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police and to an Assistant District Attorney. Judgment reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion is granted, the plea is vacated, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on Indictment Nos. 1313/78 and 2224/78. When the police arrested defendant for the crimes charged in Indictment No. 2224/78, they knew that he was represented by an attorney with respect to Indictment No. 1313/78. Accordingly, the statements which they elicited from defendant, and the statements subsequently elicited by an Assistant District Attorney, must be suppressed (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), rendered November 23,1979, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree (to cover Indictment Nos. 2224/78 and 1313/78), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The judgment brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police and to an Assistant District Attorney. Judgment reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion is granted, the plea is vacated, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on Indictment Nos. 1313/78 and 2224/78. When the police arrested defendant for the crimes charged in Indictment No. 2224/78, they knew that he was represented by an attorney with respect to Indictment No. 1313/78. Accordingly, the statements which they elicited from defendant, and the statements subsequently elicited by an Assistant District Attorney, must be suppressed (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 642, 448 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-willette-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack