From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ingram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that his confession should be suppressed because it was obtained as a result of police deception and trickery. We disagree. Although the police falsely informed the defendant, before obtaining his confession, that the co-perpetrator had implicated the defendant in the subject crime, this ruse was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process of law (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Foster, 193 A.D.2d 692, 693; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458). Moreover, we do not perceive the conduct of the law enforcement officials to have been so egregious as to render the confession involuntary (see, People v Foster, supra; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559, 563; People v. Foster, supra; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ingram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Ingram

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS INGRAM…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 780

Citing Cases

People v. Waymon Darkins

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of certain…

People v. Stokes

Defendant's claim that his confession should be suppressed because the police falsely advised him that all…