From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McCloud

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 1998
247 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 2, 1998

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court was correct in finding that, although the defendant's arrest was not based on probable cause, certain statements made by him were admissible at trial as they were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality ( see, United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, cert denied 454 U.S. 898). The statements in question were made by the defendant about eight hours after he had received the Miranda warnings no less than three times ( see, People v. Conyers, supra; People v. Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695, 696; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606; People v. Graham, 90 A.D.2d 198, cert denied 464 U.S. 896; People v. Calhoun, 78 A.D.2d 658). In addition, the police did not attempt to exploit the illegal arrest ( see, People v. Corners supra; People v. Rogers, supra), and the defendant's statements were given only after an accomplice, who had been arrested at a different time, and an informant who was in the vicinity of the crime scene during the murder, had implicated him ( see, People v. Jones, supra; People v. Allah, 140 A.D.2d 613; People v. Davis, supra; People v. Mas 110 A.D.2d 915, 916; People v. Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772; People v. Emrick, 89 A.D.2d 787, 788).

Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. McCloud

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 1998
247 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. McCloud

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARMOND McCLOUD…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 649

Citing Cases

The State v. Robert Smith

About nine hours later, the woman made a statement connecting defendant to the weapon. Shortly thereafter,…

People v. Tyrell

Tyrell had implicated her in his 9:00 a.m. statement by the time these statements were made. This intervening…