Legal Opinion

People v. King

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 22, 1984PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*971The Trial Judge found that defendant’s cotenant consented to the entry of the detectives into the apartment but that neither she nor anyone else consented to their entry into defendant’s bedroom. That finding, having been implicitly affirmed by the Appellate Division’s memorandum, is beyond our power of review (People v Volpe, 60 NY2d 803; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1032).

Defendant’s arrest having been illegal, the question whether his statement made at the precinct station within three hours thereafter…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. People v. HarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. People v. MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. People v. MatosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  5. People v. VolpeNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. ConyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. People v. GonzalezNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. People v. GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. People v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. The People v. Rong HeNew York Court of Appeals · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API