Legal Opinion

People v. Bryant

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 1983PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*788OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Admissibility of the defendant’s postarrest statement involves not the right to counsel but the protection against self incrimination. All of the spontaneity holdings relied upon by defendant, including that in People v Carmine A. (53 NY2d 816), concerned situations in which suppression turned on the right to counsel, not the right to preinterrogation warnings. Spontaneity in the latter context turns on whether a statement made by defendant was the product of “express questioning or its functional…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. People v. Carmine A.New York Court of Appeals · 1981

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. People v. FerroNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. People v. CentanoNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. People v. KromNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. People v. BurrNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. People v. HuffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API