People v. Barley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officials. The defendant’s statement, although made before being informed of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), was spontaneous and “was not triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him” (People v Castro, 73 AD3d 800, 801 [2010]; see People v Henderson, 57 AD3d 562 [2008]).
*997Moreover, the credibility determinations of a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. JamesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. FosterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. HendersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. CastroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- People v. FletcherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. DunbarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. WallaceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.