People v. Witherspoon

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Witherspoon

489 N.E.2d 758, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18258

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by98 cases

This text of 489 N.E.2d 758 (People v. Witherspoon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Witherspoon, 489 N.E.2d 758, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18258 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

When a defendant properly challenges statements made by him that the People intend to offer at trial, it is, of course, the People’s burden to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such statements wpre voluntarily made (People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35). This does not mean, however, that the People are mandated to produce all police officers who had contact with the defendant from arrest to the time that the challenged statements were elicited.

In this case, defendant presented no bona fide factual predicate which demonstrated that such officers possessed material evidence on the question of whether the statements were the product overtly or inherently of coercive methods, so the People could meet their burden through the testimony of the officer who elicited the confession. The attorney’s affidavit in support of the motion to suppress was conclusory and defendant offered no evidence at the hearing even though he was previously afforded complete discovery of the People’s case file.

Moreover, insofar as defendant suggests that the other officers may have elicited prior statements from him in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), we would note that the Supreme Court has held that this would not bar admission [975]*975of a statement made after the required warnings are administered (Oregon v Elstad, 470 US —, 105 S Ct 1285). Since the officer who testified at the suppression hearing stated that such warnings were administered prior to the defendant’s admissions, the prior events are irrelevant. People v McGregor (84 AD2d 610, on subsequent appeal 85 AD2d 848), is, therefore, disapproved.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

When a defendant properly challenges statements made by him that the People intend to offer at trial, it is, of course, the People’s burden to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such statements wpre voluntarily made (People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35). This does not mean, however, that the People are mandated to produce all police officers who had contact with the defendant from arrest to the time that the challenged statements were elicited.

In this case, defendant presented no bona fide factual predicate which demonstrated that such officers possessed material evidence on the question of whether the statements were the product overtly or inherently of coercive methods, so the People could meet their burden through the testimony of the officer who elicited the confession. The attorney’s affidavit in support of the motion to suppress was conclusory and defendant offered no evidence at the hearing even though he was previously afforded complete discovery of the People’s case file.

Moreover, insofar as defendant suggests that the other officers may have elicited prior statements from him in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), we would note that the Supreme Court has held that this would not bar admission [975]*975of a statement made after the required warnings are administered (Oregon v Elstad, 470 US —, 105 S Ct 1285). Since the officer who testified at the suppression hearing stated that such warnings were administered prior to the defendant’s admissions, the prior events are irrelevant. People v McGregor (84 AD2d 610, on subsequent appeal 85 AD2d 848), is, therefore, disapproved.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 N.E.2d 758, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 498 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-witherspoon-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack