You are here: / / Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility...
,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements

The Fourth Department sent the case back to the suppression court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of statements that had not been included in the initial 710.30 notice provided in connection with a prior indictment that had been dismissed. The statements were included in the 710.30 notice provided in connection with the superseding indictment. The Fourth Department determined the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly refused to preclude the additional statements included in the CPL 710.30 notice served by the People after the superseding indictment was filed … .  “Those [statements] were not referenced in the CPL 710.30 notice that was served in connection with the original indictment, but the record establishes that the People filed the superseding indictment out of necessity after the court dismissed . . . the original indictment” … .  We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the admissibility of the additional statements without reopening the Huntley hearing and affording defendant a further opportunity to contest their admissibility.  The court concluded that the statements were spontaneously made and therefore not subject to suppression.  At the time of the Huntley hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial indictment, however, the only issue before the court with respect to the additional statements was whether they should be precluded on the ground that they had not been included in the first CPL 710.30 notice.  Consequently, inasmuch as the voluntariness of the additional statements was not at issue at that time, defendant had no reason or opportunity to explore the issues of spontaneity or the effect of the previously-given Miranda warnings, or to raise any other issues regarding the admissibility of those statements.  Thus, “the hearing must be reopened” to afford him that opportunity… . People v Roberts, 945, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

You might also like
ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY.
Deception Used By Interrogators Rendered Confession Involuntary As a Matter of Law
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY FILING BEFORE OR AFTER THE COVID TOLL-PERIOD, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT; THE TOLL EFFECTIVELY ADDED 228 DAYS, THE LENGTH OF THE TOLL-PERIOD, TO THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST FATHER BASED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND AS A WITNESS WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING FATHER AND GIVING FATHER A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEARCH OF DEFEFNDANT’S VEHICLE BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS NOT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO AN ILLEGAL FRISK BY A POLICE OFFICER WHICH REVEALED THE CAR KEYS; COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers Do Not Support A Judgment.
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before...