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
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER AND ASSAULT SECOND; THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE (1) ASSAULT SECOND IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER, AND (2) ASSAULT SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS WAS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Termination of Parental Rights Affirmed Because Diligent Efforts to Reunite Parent and Child Were Made (In Spite of Misdiagnosis of Mother’s and Child’s Psychological Conditions)
THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME OTHER THAN TRESPASS IN THE PREMISES; THEREFORE THE COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; PRESERVATION FOR APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS GENRE OF ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, BASED UPON A JUROR’S KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members

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 © 2026 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...