15 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1978–2019 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2006There is no evidence in the record that the defendant made any inculpatory statements during the approximately 15-minute period that he was in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings (s ee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v McMillon, 31 AD3d 136 [2006]; People v Duncan, 295 AD2d 533, 534 [2002]; see also People v Jamison, 307 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]; cf. People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]). 2000(Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445 [there can be no questioning if “he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking”].) It is true that the Supreme Court has held that a request for Miranda counsel must occur within “the context of custodial interrogation” and be an “expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.” (McNeil v Wisconsin, 501 US 171, 178 [1991] [emphasis supplied].) The right to Miranda counsel “must be asserted when the government seeks to ta | 1 | 2 |
People v. Perinogreen1 sentence2019An unwarned custodial [*3] statement is admissible where not "triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration" ( People v Adams , 157 AD3d 897 , 898 [2018] [and citations therein]; see also People v Perino , 19 NY3d 85 , 90 [2012]), that is, it was "not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed" ( People v Maerling , 46 NY2d 289, 302-303 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maerlinggreen1 sentence2019An unwarned custodial [*3] statement is admissible where not "triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration" ( People v Adams , 157 AD3d 897 , 898 [2018] [and citations therein]; see also People v Perino , 19 NY3d 85 , 90 [2012]), that is, it was "not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed" ( People v Maerling , 46 NY2d 289, 302-303 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Castongreen1 sentence2010Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was not fully preserved, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and did not renew or supplement the motion upon the close of his case or the People’s rebuttal (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d 934 , 935 n 1 [2008], Iv dismissed 11 NY3d 857 [2008]). “ ‘However, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 64 AD | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2010Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was not fully preserved, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and did not renew or supplement the motion upon the close of his case or the People’s rebuttal (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d 934 , 935 n 1 [2008], Iv dismissed 11 NY3d 857 [2008]). “ ‘However, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 64 AD | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gausegreen1 sentence2010Moreover, inasmuch as defendant remained in continuous custody, no evidence exists that he was subjected to coercive tactics and the delay between the administration of the Miranda warnings and the questioning was not excessive, County Court properly determined that defendant’s statements were voluntary (see People v Carelli, 41 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2007]; People v Gause, 38 AD3d 999, 1000 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carelligreen1 sentence2010Moreover, inasmuch as defendant remained in continuous custody, no evidence exists that he was subjected to coercive tactics and the delay between the administration of the Miranda warnings and the questioning was not excessive, County Court properly determined that defendant’s statements were voluntary (see People v Carelli, 41 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2007]; People v Gause, 38 AD3d 999, 1000 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeJesusgreen1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yuklgreen1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cellerigreen1 sentence2006There is no evidence in the record that the defendant made any inculpatory statements during the approximately 15-minute period that he was in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings (s ee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v McMillon, 31 AD3d 136 [2006]; People v Duncan, 295 AD2d 533, 534 [2002]; see also People v Jamison, 307 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]; cf. People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Di Stefanogreen1 sentence2006Thus, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of the statements he made immediately after administration of the Miranda warnings (see People v Duncan, supra at 534) since he failed to meet the burden of persuasion which rested with him after the People, in the first instance, established the legality of the police conduct (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]; People v Chavis, 147 AD2d 582 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Duncangreen2 sentences2006There is no evidence in the record that the defendant made any inculpatory statements during the approximately 15-minute period that he was in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings (s ee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v McMillon, 31 AD3d 136 [2006]; People v Duncan, 295 AD2d 533, 534 [2002]; see also People v Jamison, 307 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]; cf. People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]). 2006Thus, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of the statements he made immediately after administration of the Miranda warnings (see People v Duncan, supra at 534) since he failed to meet the burden of persuasion which rested with him after the People, in the first instance, established the legality of the police conduct (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]; People v Chavis, 147 AD2d 582 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jamisongreen1 sentence2006There is no evidence in the record that the defendant made any inculpatory statements during the approximately 15-minute period that he was in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings (s ee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v McMillon, 31 AD3d 136 [2006]; People v Duncan, 295 AD2d 533, 534 [2002]; see also People v Jamison, 307 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]; cf. People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Harold S. Alston v. Walter Redman, Warden Charles M. Oberly, Iii, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and the State of Delawaregreen1 sentence2000(Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445 [there can be no questioning if “he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking”].) It is true that the Supreme Court has held that a request for Miranda counsel must occur within “the context of custodial interrogation” and be an “expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.” (McNeil v Wisconsin, 501 US 171, 178 [1991] [emphasis supplied].) The right to Miranda counsel “must be asserted when the government seeks to ta | 1 | 1 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen1 sentence2000(Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445 [there can be no questioning if “he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking”].) It is true that the Supreme Court has held that a request for Miranda counsel must occur within “the context of custodial interrogation” and be an “expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.” (McNeil v Wisconsin, 501 US 171, 178 [1991] [emphasis supplied].) The right to Miranda counsel “must be asserted when the government seeks to ta | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina v. Butlerred1 sentence1992The totality of the circumstances in this case reveals that defendant’s course of conduct following the administration of the Miranda warnings in the Hudson police station until he began to respond to Ward’s questions in Albany was equivocal at best and, therefore, the People failed to meet their burden of showing "a course of conduct indicating waiver”, as required by North Carolina v Butler (supra, at 373). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2010Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was not fully preserved, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and did not renew or supplement the motion upon the close of his case or the People’s rebuttal (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d 934 , 935 n 1 [2008], Iv dismissed 11 NY3d 857 [2008]). “ ‘However, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 64 AD | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Rosario
green
1 sentence2010Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was not fully preserved, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and did not renew or supplement the motion upon the close of his case or the People’s rebuttal (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d 934 , 935 n 1 [2008], Iv dismissed 11 NY3d 857 [2008]). “ ‘However, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 64 AD | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Dunnell
green
1 sentence2010Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was not fully preserved, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and did not renew or supplement the motion upon the close of his case or the People’s rebuttal (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d 934 , 935 n 1 [2008], Iv dismissed 11 NY3d 857 [2008]). “ ‘However, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 64 AD | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Burns
green
1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Dillhunt
green
1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Patterson v. District Court of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2007The defendant failed to demonstrate otherwise (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d 216 [2007]; People v DeJesus, 32 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2006]; People v Burns, 18 AD3d 397, 397-398 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 793 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Colonna
green
1 sentence2006Thus, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of the statements he made immediately after administration of the Miranda warnings (see People v Duncan, supra at 534) since he failed to meet the burden of persuasion which rested with him after the People, in the first instance, established the legality of the police conduct (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]; People v Chavis, 147 AD2d 582 [1989]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. McMillon
green
1 sentence2006There is no evidence in the record that the defendant made any inculpatory statements during the approximately 15-minute period that he was in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings (s ee Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v McMillon, 31 AD3d 136 [2006]; People v Duncan, 295 AD2d 533, 534 [2002]; see also People v Jamison, 307 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]; cf. People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Rosario
green
1 sentence1995In the context of Vehicle and Traffic Law breathalyzer cases, there is no obligation to advise an individual of any rights prior to the administration of a breathalyzer examination (see, People v Rosario, 136 Misc 2d 445 [Grim Ct, Bronx County 1987]). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1993Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted for a new trial if the People be so advised (People v Gonzalez, 80 NY2d 883 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Bing green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Velasco
green
1 sentence1991We also reject the defendant’s contention that his statutorily and constitutionally-protected right to be present during the process of impaneling the jury (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431 ; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1 ) was violated because a discussion concerning certain prospective jurors took place at the bench and because challenges were conveyed to the Trial Judge outside the courtroom (cf., People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Ganett, 68 AD2d 81 , affd 51 NY2d 991 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Ganett green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Cote
neutral
1 sentence1991Accordingly, the New York City detectives were entitled to question the defendant after he voluntarily waived his right to counsel following the administration of the Miranda warnings (see, People v Bing, supra; People v Cote, supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Ganett green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Ciaccio
green
1 sentence1991We also reject the defendant’s contention that his statutorily and constitutionally-protected right to be present during the process of impaneling the jury (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431 ; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1 ) was violated because a discussion concerning certain prospective jurors took place at the bench and because challenges were conveyed to the Trial Judge outside the courtroom (cf., People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Ganett, 68 AD2d 81 , affd 51 NY2d 991 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Dawson green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Barreras neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Suarez neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Bucknor neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Bing green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Love green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Lucas green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Boyd green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Bartolomeo red | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| In re Michelet P. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| People v. Kaye green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.