Legal Opinion

In re Eduardo E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 17, 2012Published

1Opinion of the Court

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement to the police. The totality of the circumstances establishes that the statement was voluntarily made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). There is no evidence that appellant had any mental impairment that would affect his ability to understand Miranda warnings. Appellant turned 16 years of age between the incident and the interrogation; therefore, the special statutory procedures for juvenile interrogations were not required (see Family Court Act § 305.2 [2];…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. People v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. In re Christopher QQ.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API