People v. Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zapata

280 A.D.2d 500, 720 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Zapata) 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. Zapata, 280 A.D.2d 500, 720 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[501]*501fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 20, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

All of the statements made by the defendant before he was advised of and knowingly waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) were made in a non-custodial context. Thus, the statements were admissible (see, People v Steed, 222 AD2d 536; People v Lovette, 212 AD2d 639; People v Edwards, 124 AD2d 818).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[501]*501fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 20, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

All of the statements made by the defendant before he was advised of and knowingly waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) were made in a non-custodial context. Thus, the statements were admissible (see, People v Steed, 222 AD2d 536; People v Lovette, 212 AD2d 639; People v Edwards, 124 AD2d 818).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 500, 720 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zapata-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack