People v. Dillhunt, 41 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Dillhunt, 41 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2010–2024 · 2 courts · …were still in the process of gathering information about the alleged incident prior to taking any action at p. 217 ✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …still in the process of gathering information about the accident prior to taking any action ≈ altered Topic ↗
45 citation events (45 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McGee (James)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2024 · confidence medium
Defendant was neither handcuffed nor surrounded by police, and the words and actions of the officers did not convey to defendant reason to believe that he had been placed in custody ( see People v Hernandez, 217 AD3d 460 [2023]), but rather that the officers were responding to an emergency situation and "were still in the process of gathering information about the alleged incident prior to taking any action" ( People v Dillhunt , 41 AD3d 216, 217 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cornelius
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although the officer at the scene asked defendant some questions about what had happened, questions posed in an attempt to gather information about the circumstances surrounding a possible crime do not constitute custodial interrogation for the purposes of Miranda (see Dillhunt, 41 AD3d at 217; Matter of Rennette B., 281 AD2d 78, 83 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of County Court’s determinations that Kozel was “frank, candid, and trustworthy and [that] his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility,” we find that the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s pre Miranda statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation (see People v McCoy, 89 AD3d at 1220; People v Underdue, 89 AD3d at 1133; People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d 1043, 1046 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 216-217 [2007], lv deni…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of County Court’s determinations that Kozel was “frank, candid, and trustworthy and [that] his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility,” we find that the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s pre Miranda statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation (see People v McCoy, 89 AD3d at 1220; People v Underdue, 89 AD3d at 1133; People v Pouliot, 64 AD3d 1043, 1046 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 216-217 [2007], lv deni…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cuyler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the Supreme Court’s determination that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at the time his statements were made prior to the administration of Miranda (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 [1966]) warnings (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Marinas, 90 AD3d 677 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012]; People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194 [2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]; People v …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Marinus
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the County Court’s determination that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at the time the statements were made (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194 [2d Dept 2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d at 981 ; People v Perez, 44 AD3d 441, 442 [2007]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 217 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sampson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
We agree with the finding of the hearing court, which is entitled to great deference, that the defendant was not in custody when he gave his exculpatory statement to the detectives (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Brown, 44 AD3d 966 [2007]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216, 216-217 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
William Dillhunt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 14, 2007.
41 A.D.3d 216
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered August 22, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing record establishes that defendant’s statements made prior to Miranda warnings were not the product of custodial interrogation, because a reasonable innocent person in defendant’s position would not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the precinct; although in requesting defendant’s presence a detec[*217] tive expressed his own “need” to speak to defendant at that location, the detective clearly expressed a request and not a direction. At the precinct, the police kept defendant unhandcuffed and unrestrained, and questioned him in a nonthreatening manner for half an hour. The fact that the detective showed defendant a police report implicating him in the assault at issue did not, under all the circumstances, render the questioning custodial, since a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would have believed that the police were still in the process of gathering information about the alleged incident prior to taking any action. “Even a clear statement from an officer that the person under interrogation is a prime suspect is not, in itself, dispositive of the custody issue, for some suspects are free to come and go until the police decide to make an arrest” (Stansbury v California, 511 US 318, 325 [1994]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on the People’s summation. The challenged portions of the People’s summation do not warrant reversal (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). To the extent that there were any improprieties, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. In most of these instances, the court provided a sufficient remedy by sustaining objections, after which defendant did not request any curative instructions.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.