People v. Centano
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant argues that he was subjected to a custodial interrogation and that due to the failure to administer Miranda warnings (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), all statements made by him should be suppressed. The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact *838(see, People v Morales, 65 NY2d 997, 998). The Appellate Division has left undisturbed Supreme Court’s determination that there was no custodial interrogation, thus this court could overturn that finding only if we were to…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. YuklNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- People v. McRayNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. FerroNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. HarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by129 opinions
- People v. TankleffNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- People v. SalaamNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. HarrisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. TankleffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- People v. McCullochAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
124 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.