People v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 02 June 1986 |
| Citation | 121 A.D.2d 392,503 N.Y.S.2d 103 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward BROOKS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Clennan, Centereach, for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Michael Blakey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and GIBBONS, NIEHOFF and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered June 5, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the first 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 to suppress statements made by him to the police.
Judgment affirmed.
The alleged inadequacy of the People's notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 did not require exclusion of the defendant's statements under the circumstances at bar. The defendant received notice of the sum and substance of the statement and had a full opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the statement at the Huntley hearing, after which that branch of his motion which was to suppress his statements was denied (see, People v. Swanton, 107 A.D.2d 829, 484 N.Y.S.2d 846; People v. Whitaker, 106 A.D.2d 594, 483 N.Y.S.2d 100; People v. Bennett, 80 A.D.2d 68, 438 N.Y.S.2d 389, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 837, 453 N.Y.S.2d 164, 438 N.E.2d 870).
With respect to the issue of deception in obtaining the defendant's confession, we conclude that the conduct of the police officer was not so egregious as to render the confession involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Boone, 22 N.Y.2d 476, 293 N.Y.S.2d 287, 239 N.E.2d 885, cert. denied sub nom. Brandon v. New York, 393 U.S. 991, 89 S.Ct. 464, 21 L.Ed.2d 455; People v. McQueen, 18 N.Y.2d 337, 274 N.Y.S.2d 886, 221 N.E.2d 550).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Slater
...and defendant had a full opportunity to challenge the admissibility of such statements at a suppression hearing (see, People v. Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392, 503 N.Y.S.2d 103; People v. Bennett, 80 A.D.2d 68, 71, 438 N.Y.S.2d 389, affd 56 N.Y.2d 837, 453 N.Y.S.2d 164, 438 N.E.2d 870). Moreover, h......
-
People v. Hodges
...statement. See, for example, People v. Reed, supra; People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 397 N.Y.S.2d 613, 366 N.E.2d 273; People v. Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392, 503 N.Y.S.2d 103; People v. Reid, 215 A.D.2d 507, 626 N.Y.S.2d 250, appeal denied, 86 N.Y.2d 846, 634 N.Y.S.2d 455, 658 N.E.2d 233; People ......
-
People v. Olds
...of the statement of which notice was given on March 31, 1988. The People opposed the motion relying on People v. Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392, 503 N.Y.S.2d 103 (2d Dept. 1986), and the Appellate Division decision in People v. Bennett, 80 A.D.2d 68, 438 N.Y.S.2d 389 (3d Dept. 1981), aff'd on limit......
-
People v. Amparo
...the admissibility of the statement at the Huntley hearing, after which his suppression motion was denied (see, People v. Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392, 503 N.Y.S.2d 103; People v. Swanton, 107 A.D.2d 829, 484 N.Y.S.2d 846; People v. Taylor, 102 A.D.2d 944, 477 N.Y.S.2d 805, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 1, 489 ......