From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1996
226 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Jeffrey Atlas, J., Herbert Altman, J.


Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The record fails to support defendant's claim that her statements were the product of continuous police interrogation for a period of almost 12 hours. On the contrary, during this period of time, defendant was offered food and drink and there was a break of several hours between the making of written and videotaped statements ( compare, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35). Nor was there anything defective about the Miranda warnings and waivers ( see, People v. Dunwoody, 89 A.D.2d 569, 570). We see no reason to reduce defendant's bargained-for sentence.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1996
226 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Lang

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TRACEY LANG, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 23, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 258

Citing Cases

People v. Lee

According to the detective, defendant was not pressured or coerced into speaking with him nor indicated at…

People v. Hernandez

However, "[e]ven an interview of extended duration at a police station is not necessarily a custodial…