People v. Seabrooks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a review of the totality of the circumstances (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 [1977]) demonstrates that his written statement to the police, which was given after he was informed of, and *1131waived, his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was voluntarily made (see CPL 60.45 [1]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d at 414; People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. MateoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. SandovalNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- People v. NimmonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. GuerreroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- People v. MurrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
- People v. WongsamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.