People v. Wright

314 N.E.2d 880, 34 N.Y.2d 776, 358 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1541
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Wright. Read the opinion of the Court — 37 N.Y.2d 88
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 6, 1974·Published

Opinion

Memorandum. Defendant’s motion to suppress and the ensuing hearing were directed only at the voluntariness of his confession. He may not therefore argue that there was insufficient basis to arrest him (cf. People v. Gates, 24 N Y 2d 666, 670, n. 5).

If this court were to consider the affidavit of defendant’s Michigan attorney, dehors the record, then the District Attorney should, of course, be afforded a similar opportunity. If all the facts presented to the court, albeit dehors the record, were considered, there was probable cause for the fugitive arrest in this State based on the facts in Michigan and the stolen automobile in New York. The confessions by defendant, which followed, as found by the courts below, were therefore invulnerable to attack.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

People v. Wright, 314 N.E.2d 880, 34 N.Y.2d 776, 358 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1541 (N.Y. 1974).

314 N.E.2d 880 (People v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.