From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. King

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1984
61 N.Y.2d 969 (N.Y. 1984)


Argued February 21, 1984

Decided March 22, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Patrick J. Bonomo, J.

Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney ( Brian D. Foley and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for appellant.

Philip L. Weinstein and William E. Hellerstein for respondent.


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The 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 N.Y.2d 803; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1032).

Defendant's arrest having been illegal, the question whether his statement made at the precinct station within three hours thereafter was the fruit of the illegal arrest presented a mixed question of law and fact, which is also beyond our power to review ( People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470; see Brown v Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 11.4, p 256, 1984 Pocket Part).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Summaries of

People v. King

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 22, 1984
61 N.Y.2d 969 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

People v. King

Case Details


Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 22, 1984


61 N.Y.2d 969 (N.Y. 1984)
475 N.Y.S.2d 275
463 N.E.2d 616

Citing Cases

People v. Jackson

[2] The facts concerning Cruz's age and where he was housed were readily available prior to trial and…

People v. Rong He

Whether the causal connection between defendant's illegal arrest and his statements was sufficiently…