From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dejesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1993
192 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 5, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We find no merit to the defendant's contention that his statement to the investigating detective should have been suppressed. The defendant's answer to a single question, which was not intended to elicit an inculpatory response, did not fall within the bounds of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings (see, People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; People v Rosen, 112 A.D.2d 253, 255; People v Fadale, 92 A.D.2d 723).

We further find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dejesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1993
192 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Dejesus

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MANNY DEJESUS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

People v. Vasquez

I had a bad night". That the defendant was asked a question by a police officer, does not necessarily compel…

People v. Johnson

The evidence adduced at the trial did not present a close question on the issue of identification, and the…