People v. Jacobs
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | MAHONEY |
| Citation | People v. Jacobs, 523 N.Y.S.2d 256, 136 A.D.2d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James JACOBS, Appellant. |
Silver, Forrester, Schisano, Lesser & O'Donnell, Newburgh (Sol Lesser, of counsel) for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Ulster County Dist. Atty., Kingston (Joan Lamb, of counsel) for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered January 14, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree.
On June 22, 1986 at about 6:00 A.M., defendant, suspecting that his paramour, Kathleen Fitzgerald, was entertaining another man, went to her home and, after she refused him entrance, forced his way into her apartment. Another man, James Hoover, was present. After defendant refused to leave, a heated oral dispute between defendant and Hoover escalated into a fight which resulted in defendant being thrown out of the front door, where he caught his foot on a stair railing and fell to the ground. Hoover followed defendant outside and physically threw him into his car with an angry admonition to leave the premises. Rather than leave, defendant exited the vehicle with a knife in his hand, and after another physical altercation he stabbed Hoover in the chest.
Defendant was indicted for the crime of assault in the second degree. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress statements he made prior to his arrest and those subsequent to arrest and after he had been given Miranda warnings. County Court granted the motion only as to those statements made by defendant before he was given the Miranda warnings. This appeal by defendant ensued.
The evidence introduced at the suppression hearing revealed that Detective Keith Camillo of the Ulster County Sheriff's Department was at the Fitzgerald residence at about 7:30 A.M. on June 22, 1986 investigating the stabbing when he received a phone call from defendant. After a preliminary discussion, Camillo and defendant agreed to meet at the post office in the community of Modena, Ulster County. Once there, defendant admitted to Camillo that he stabbed Hoover. Camillo then arrested defendant and read him his Miranda rights. While being transported to police headquarters in the City of Kingston, defendant voluntarily stated that he stabbed Hoover in self-defense. At police headquarters defendant was turned over to Detective Lieutenant John Lima. After Lima again advised defendant of his Miranda rights, he elicited from defendant essentially the same facts concerning the stabbing as defendant had given to Camillo. County Court concluded from statements made by Camillo that defendant was in custody when he was interrogated at Modena and that, therefore, statements made by defendant before his Miranda rights were...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Hicks
...727, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 848, 606 N.Y.S.2d 599, 627 N.E.2d 521; People v. Schultz, 187 A.D.2d 466, 590 N.Y.S.2d 729; People v. Jacobs, 136 A.D.2d 796, 523 N.Y.S.2d 256; cf., People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 502 N.Y.S.2d 713, 493 N.E.2d 937). It is also not insignificant that the subsequent......
-
People v. White
...937; People v. Holmes, 145 A.D.2d 908, 536 N.Y.S.2d 289, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 897, 548 N.Y.S.2d 430, 547 N.E.2d 957; People v. Jacobs, 136 A.D.2d 796, 523 N.Y.S.2d 256). Nor did defendant make any unwarned statement that could be said to have committed him to later confessing to the crime (......
-
People v. Kaufman
...People v Smith, 275 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 739; People v Hicks, 226 A.D.2d 938, 939-940, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 937; People v Jacobs, 136 A.D.2d 796, 797-798). However, we agree with the court that, "[o]n this record, the voluntariness of the defendant's [second and third written] sta......
-
People v. Hawthorne
...statement was not the product of a continuous interrogation (cf., People v. Bethea, supra; People v. Chapple, supra; People v. Jacobs, 136 A.D.2d 796, 523 N.Y.S.2d 256). The defendant's further contention that the pretrial identification procedures utilized by the police were suggestive and......