From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gaines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1989
147 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 3, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, plea vacated and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: The suppression court found that defendant's confession was illegally obtained both because of a violation of his Miranda rights and because the confession was induced by promises. The court, however, concluded that the promises were not of a quality that would create a substantial risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself. Thus, the court permitted the use of the confession for impeachment purposes. In our view, this was error. Pursuant to Bram v United States ( 168 U.S. 532), defendant's confession cannot be deemed voluntary and therefore could not be used at trial either on the People's direct case or for impeachment purposes (see also, Mincey v Arizona, 437 U.S. 385; People v Hilliard, 117 A.D.2d 969).


Summaries of

People v. Gaines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1989
147 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Gaines

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS GAINES…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
537 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

People v. Ross

Accordingly, the defendant's response must be suppressed under the statute. Moreover, because this type of…

People v. Ross

Accordingly, the defendant's response must be suppressed under the statute. Moreover, because this type of…