From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Concepcion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 1999
257 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 19, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.).


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The totality of the circumstances supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statements and confession were voluntarily made and not the product of improper influence ( Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35). Although defendant was at the police station for over 10 hours prior to confessing, the record supports the hearing court's determination that he had not been treated as a suspect for most of his time at the precinct. He had gone to the precinct willingly after identifying himself as the boyfriend of one of the victims, was advised of his Miranda rights, expressed a desire to assist the police in their investigation, and received sympathy from the police for his loss. He was provided with food, drinks, cigarettes, and breaks from questioning, was given an opportunity to sleep, and was never threatened or restrained. Based on all of these circumstances, we see no reason to disturb the hearing court's determination that defendant's statements were voluntarily made.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Concepcion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 1999
257 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Concepcion

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAMON CONCEPCION…

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 516

Citing Cases

People v. Mastin

The prosecution witnesses, whose testimony the suppression court and jury were entitled to credit ( see,…