People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.2d 606,502 N.Y.S.2d 80 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bernard DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Jill M. Moscowitz, of counsel; Susan K. Wetzel, on brief), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Alexander P. Schlinger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered September 18, 1981, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Browne, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the defendant's statements to the police.
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant asserts that his warrantless arrest was illegal because it was based on information supplied by informants whose reliability was unproven. This contention is not disputed by the People and is unquestionably correct (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439).
The People argue, however, that certain incriminating statements made by the defendant after his arrest were nevertheless properly admitted into evidence since the taint caused by the illegal arrest had dissipated by the time the defendant made such statements. We agree.
A review of the record reveals that the defendant first spoke to police at 1:30 or 2:00 P.M. approximately four to six hours after his arrest, which had occurred at 8:00, or possibly as late as 9:30 that morning. More importantly, the defendant's first statement to police came only after a codefendant, who had been arrested at a different time and place, made an independent statement to police which implicated the defendant in the homicide. Thus, any taint caused by the illegal arrest was fully dissipated before the defendant made any statements to the police (see, People v. Mas, 110 A.D.2d 915, 916, 488 N.Y.S.2d 261; People v. Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772, 461 N.Y.S.2d 341; People v. Emrick, 89 A.D.2d 787, 788, 453 N.Y.S.2d 478; cf. People v. Gordon, 87 A.D.2d 636, 448 N.Y.S.2d 217).
The defendant also contends that he was arrested at his home in violation of the rule of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639). We disagree. The evidence in the record establishes that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Xochimitl
...295 [the defendant opened a motel room door, stepped back, and allowed a single detective to enter the room]; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 607, 502 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; People v. Taylor, 111 A.D.2d 520, 521, 489 N.Y.S.2d 394 ), here, the People failed to show that the elderly woman's act of ba......
-
People v. Dubois
...the record does support a finding that by his actions the defendant consented to Glynn's entry into the apartment ( see, People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 502 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 769, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1052, 498 N.E.2d 154; People v. Taylor, 111 A.D.2d 520, 489 N.Y.S.2d 394, lv. den......
-
People v. Smith
...(People v. Washington, 209 A.D.2d 817, 619 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 944, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 651 N.E.2d 931; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 502 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 769, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1052, 498 N.E.2d 154; People v. Satornino, 153 A.D.2d 595, 544 N.Y.S.2d 224), upon ans......
-
People v. Colon
...girlfriend's "conduct in stepping aside from the door to admit the [deputies] is enough to establish consent" ( People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 607, 502 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 769, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1052, 498 N.E.2d 154 ). Moreover, defendant's girlfriend had actual authority to cons......