People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Maurice HALL, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 915
44 N.Y.S.3d 102
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08541
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Maurice HALL, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 21, 2016.
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jill Oziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon 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 his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials after he was advised of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ). "A court generally must look to the totality of the circumstances
to determine the voluntariness of an inculpatory statement" (People v. Brown, 113 A.D.3d 785, 785, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862 ). "The factors to be weighed include the duration and conditions of detention, the manifest attitude of the
police towards the defendant, the existence of threat or inducement, and the age, physical state, and mental state of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stevens
...to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hall, 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d 832, 833, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; People v. Chase, 101 A.D.3d 1141, 955 N.Y.S.2d 891 ) and, in any......
-
People v. Zelaya
...prior to giving his subsequent statements (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Hall , 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; 96 N.Y.S.3d 685 People v. Brown , 113 A.D.3d 785, 785, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862 ). The evidence at the suppression hearing furthe......
-
People v. Black
...prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous (see People v. Hall, 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Loucks, 125 A.D.3d 890, 890–891, 2 N.Y.S.3d 620 ; People v. Gega, 74 A.D.3d 1229, 1231, 904 N.Y.S.2d 716 ......
-
People v. Waters
...voluntarily, and intelligently waived them (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Hall, 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Brown, 113 A.D.3d 785, 785, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862 ; People v. Gega, 74 A.D.3d 1229, 1231, 904 N.Y.S.2d 716 ).Viewing ......