Legal Opinion
People v. McFadden
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 23, 1987PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly received defendant’s statement into evidence. No CPL 710.30 notice was required because there is no question of voluntariness (People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 37, affd 65 NY2d 837; People v Pray, 99 AD2d 915, 916). Defendant’s statement was clearly spontaneous as it was made as part of the res gestae and not in response to any questioning by police (see, People v Balschweit, 91 AD2d 1127; People v Early, 85 AD2d 752; People v Smith, 100 Misc 2d 823, 824).
We have considered the other contention raised by defendant and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. RoopchandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- People v. EarlyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- People v. PrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- People v. BalschweitAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- People v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. CopesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. HenniganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. RomanNew York Supreme Court · 2003