From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1983
448 N.E.2d 792 (N.Y. 1983)

Opinion

Argued February 10, 1983

Decided March 22, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, BERNARD A. FEENEY, JR., J., JAMES J. BATTISTI, J.

Michael J. Obus and Matthew Muraskin for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney ( Denise Parillo and Anthony J. Girese of counsel), for respondent.


Order affirmed. On the record it cannot be said that the courts below committed an error of law in concluding that the defendant's statements were spontaneous ( People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476; cf. Rhode Island v Innis, 446 U.S. 291).

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS.


Summaries of

People v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1983
448 N.E.2d 792 (N.Y. 1983)
Case details for

People v. Boyd

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES BOYD, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 22, 1983

Citations

448 N.E.2d 792 (N.Y. 1983)
448 N.E.2d 792
461 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

People v. Stringfellow

However, a spontaneous utterance is a statement that is "blurted out by defendant * * * [and] in effect…

People v. Padron

In the instant case, aside from seeking pedigree information, the defendant was not subjected to any other…