Legal Opinion
People v. Salem
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 16, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements to the police because they were preceded by Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) and defendant was not subject to continuous interrogation to render the warnings ineffective (see, People v Shipman, 156 AD2d 494; People v Scruggs, 138 AD2d 646; People v Glover, 58 AD2d 814, 815; cf., People v Bethea, 67 NY2d 364; People v Chappie, 38 NY2d 112). There was a definite and pronounced break in the interrogation of the defendant (see, People v McIntyre, 138 AD2d 634, 637,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. ChappleNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. BetheaNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. McIntyreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- People v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. BolusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. EngertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. DavisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994