import of the Miranda warning (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

import of the Miranda warning in New York

20 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1986–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Zadorozhnyigreen
nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 7 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2014
2 sentences

2014The record indicates that defendant “had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings” (People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Mora, 36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; People v Zuluaga, 148 AD2d 480, 481 [1989]; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 [1988]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

67
People v. Madridgreen
nyappdiv · 2008 · cited in 6 New York opinions naming this issue, 2008–2014
2 sentences

2014The record indicates that defendant “had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings” (People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Mora, 36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; People v Zuluaga, 148 AD2d 480, 481 [1989]; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 [1988]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

56
People v. Younggreen
nyappdiv · 2003 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013To the contrary, having reviewed the record of the Huntley hearing, we conclude that “defendant understood the Miranda warnings and, with such understanding, freely chose to answer the questions asked by the police” (People v Benton, 158 AD2d 987, 987 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 963 [1990]; see People v Young, 303 AD2d 952, 952 [2003]).

2013To the contrary, having reviewed the record of the Huntley hearing, we conclude that “defendant understood the Miranda warnings and, with such understanding, freely chose to answer the questions asked by the police” (People v Benton, 158 AD2d 987, 987 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 963 [1990]; see People v Young, 303 AD2d 952, 952 [2003]).

33
People v. Bentongreen
nyappdiv · 1990 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013To the contrary, having reviewed the record of the Huntley hearing, we conclude that “defendant understood the Miranda warnings and, with such understanding, freely chose to answer the questions asked by the police” (People v Benton, 158 AD2d 987, 987 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 963 [1990]; see People v Young, 303 AD2d 952, 952 [2003]).

2013To the contrary, having reviewed the record of the Huntley hearing, we conclude that “defendant understood the Miranda warnings and, with such understanding, freely chose to answer the questions asked by the police” (People v Benton, 158 AD2d 987, 987 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 963 [1990]; see People v Young, 303 AD2d 952, 952 [2003]).

23
People v. Duuvongreen
ny · 1991 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

22
People v. Jin Cheng Lingreen
nyappdiv · 2013 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) he received before making a statement to the police (see People v Jin Cheng Lin, 105 AD3d 761, 762 [2013]; People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) he received before making a statement to the police (see People v Jin Cheng Lin, 105 AD3d 761, 762 [2013]; People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

22
People v. Williamsgreen
ny · 1984 · cited in 6 New York opinions naming this issue, 1986–2008
2 sentences

2008Turning to the Huntley issue, the determination as to whether a defendant has made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights is “essentially a factual issue that must be determined according to the circumstances of each case.” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288 [1984].) A defendant with limited command of the English language must have sufficient understanding to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings in order to effect a valid waiver of his rights.

1989To constitute an effective waiver, it is not necessary that a defendant comprehend the import of the Miranda warnings in the abstract, so long as he is able to understand the immediate meaning of the warnings (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285 ; People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427 ).

16
People v. Zuluagagreen
nyappdiv · 1989 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014The record indicates that defendant “had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings” (People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Mora, 36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; People v Zuluaga, 148 AD2d 480, 481 [1989]; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 [1988]).

11
People v. Moragreen
nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014The record indicates that defendant “had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings” (People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Mora, 36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; People v Zuluaga, 148 AD2d 480, 481 [1989]; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 [1988]).

11
People v. Ortizgreen
nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007We find no basis to disturb County Court’s finding that defendant understood English and thus appreciated the import of the Miranda warnings (see People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263 , 264 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 954 [2000]; People v Ortiz, 259 AD2d 979, 980-981 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1024 [1999]; People v Padilla, 150 AD2d 393, 393-394 [1989]).

11
People v. Padillagreen
nyappdiv · 1989 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007We find no basis to disturb County Court’s finding that defendant understood English and thus appreciated the import of the Miranda warnings (see People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263 , 264 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 954 [2000]; People v Ortiz, 259 AD2d 979, 980-981 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1024 [1999]; People v Padilla, 150 AD2d 393, 393-394 [1989]).

11
People v. Villeneuvegreen
nyappdiv · 1996 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Defendant came in contact with three separate State Troopers on the day of his arrest who each testified that defendant had no difficulty understanding or speaking English (see People v Villeneuve, 232 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1996]).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (19)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Alexandre green
nyappdiv · 1995
2 sentences

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

71999–2013
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

2013Moreover, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the defendant understood the import of the Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) given to him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

51988–2013
People v. Acuna green
nyappdiv · 1988
2 sentences

1999The record fully supports the court’s finding that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings (see, People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 ; People v Eismann, 158 AD2d 537 ; People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427, 430 ; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ).

1995We disagree. " 'To constitute an effective waiver, it is not necessary that a defendant comprehend the import of the Miranda warnings in the abstract, so long as he is able to understand the immediate meaning of the warnings’ ” (People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427, 430 ).

31989–1999
People v. Tineo green
nyappdiv · 1988
2 sentences

2014The record indicates that defendant “had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings” (People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Mora, 36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; People v Zuluaga, 148 AD2d 480, 481 [1989]; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 [1988]).

1999The record fully supports the court’s finding that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings (see, People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 ; People v Eismann, 158 AD2d 537 ; People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427, 430 ; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ).

21999–2014
People v. Hicks green
nyappdiv · 2010
2 sentences

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

22013–2013
People v. Julien green
nyappdiv · 2012
2 sentences

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

22013–2013
People v. Grassia neutral
nyappdiv · 1993
2 sentences

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

2013Moreover, as this Court previously concluded on the appeal of the codefendant (see People v Julien, 100 AD3d at 927 ), the Supreme Court properly admitted testimony regarding the showup identification made by the victim near the scene of the crime (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d 1075 [2010]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607 [1993]).

22013–2013
People v. Dorsey neutral
nyappdiv · 1986
2 sentences

1988"To constitute an effective waiver, it is not necessary that a defendant comprehend the import of the Miranda warnings in the abstract, so long as he is able to understand the immediate meaning of the warnings” (People v Avilez, 121 AD2d 391, 392 , citing People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285 ; People v Dorsey, 118 AD2d 653 , lv denied 67 NY2d 1052 ).

1986To constitute an effective waiver, it is not necessary that a defendant comprehend the import of the Miranda warnings in the abstract, so long as he is able to understand the immediate meaning of the warnings (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 287 ; People v Dorsey, 118 AD2d 653 ).

21986–1988
People v. Mateo green
nyappdiv · 2021
1 sentence

2024Specifically, the detective's pre-warning statements that the Miranda warnings did not "mean anything" and were "just part of the process," viewed in conjunction with the defendant's unresolved confusion as to whether he could answer the detectives' questions, does not demonstrate that the defendant had a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it ( see People v Dunbar , 104 AD3d at 206 ; cf. People v Rodriguez-Rivera , 203 AD3d 1624 ; People v Mateo , 194 AD3d 1342 ).

12024–2024
People v. Rodriguez-Rivera green
nyappdiv · 2022
1 sentence

2024Specifically, the detective's pre-warning statements that the Miranda warnings did not "mean anything" and were "just part of the process," viewed in conjunction with the defendant's unresolved confusion as to whether he could answer the detectives' questions, does not demonstrate that the defendant had a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it ( see People v Dunbar , 104 AD3d at 206 ; cf. People v Rodriguez-Rivera , 203 AD3d 1624 ; People v Mateo , 194 AD3d 1342 ).

12024–2024
People v. Dunbar green
nyappdiv · 2013
1 sentence

2024Specifically, the detective's pre-warning statements that the Miranda warnings did not "mean anything" and were "just part of the process," viewed in conjunction with the defendant's unresolved confusion as to whether he could answer the detectives' questions, does not demonstrate that the defendant had a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it ( see People v Dunbar , 104 AD3d at 206 ; cf. People v Rodriguez-Rivera , 203 AD3d 1624 ; People v Mateo , 194 AD3d 1342 ).

12024–2024
People v. Chu green
nyappdiv · 2004
1 sentence

2008The record supports the court’s finding that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings prior to both of his statements (see People v Tin P. Chu, 8 AD3d 399 [2004]; People v Zadorozhnyi, 267 AD2d 263, 264 [1999]; People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 [1995]).

12008–2008
People v. Rogers green
nyappdiv · 1998
2 sentences

1999While a second psychologist, Jeffrey Fox, expressed a contrary opinion, deference is generally paid to County Court’s resolution of conflicts in expert testimony (see, People v Rogers [Rodgers], 247 AD2d 765, 766 , lvs denied 91 NY2d 976 , 977; People v King, 234 AD2d 923, 924 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1012 ).

1999While a second psychologist, Jeffrey Fox, expressed a contrary opinion, deference is generally paid to County Court’s resolution of conflicts in expert testimony (see, People v Rogers [Rodgers], 247 AD2d 765, 766 , lvs denied 91 NY2d 976 , 977; People v King, 234 AD2d 923, 924 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1012 ).

11999–1999
People v. Eismann green
nyappdiv · 1990
1 sentence

1999The record fully supports the court’s finding that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to appreciate the import of the Miranda warnings (see, People v Alexandre, 215 AD2d 488 ; People v Eismann, 158 AD2d 537 ; People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427, 430 ; People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ).

11999–1999
People v. King green
nyappdiv · 1996
1 sentence

1999While a second psychologist, Jeffrey Fox, expressed a contrary opinion, deference is generally paid to County Court’s resolution of conflicts in expert testimony (see, People v Rogers [Rodgers], 247 AD2d 765, 766 , lvs denied 91 NY2d 976 , 977; People v King, 234 AD2d 923, 924 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1012 ).

11999–1999
People v. Mendoza neutral
nyappdiv · 1997
1 sentence

1999The hearing court properly considered the testimony of the People’s rebuttal witnesses regarding the language used by the defendant to communicate with them at a correctional facility, in light of the defendant’s hearing testimony that he was unable to communicate in English (see, People v Mendoza, 240 AD2d 316 ).

11999–1999
People v. Williams green
nyappdiv · 1991
1 sentence

1998(People v Williams, supra, at 290 .) In another case, People v Williams ( 174 AD2d 969 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1015 [1991]), the Court stated the long-accepted formula, “ ‘[w]hether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights is a factual question to be determined by the totality of the circumstances, which includes the defendant’s limited mental capacity as but one factor’ ” (citations omitted).

11998–1998
People v. Delgado green
nyappdiv · 1986
1 sentence

1989There exists no mandated language for the police to use in order to elicit a waiver (see, People v Delgado, 118 AD2d 580 ).

11989–1989
People v. Avilez neutral
nyappdiv · 1986
11988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 130.30 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check