From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McFarlane

Court of Appeals of New York.
Aug 29, 2013
995 N.E.2d 845 (N.Y. 2013)

Opinion

2013-08-29

The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Terrence McFARLANE, Respondent.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Respondent precluded.


Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Respondent precluded.
MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination as to whether a defendant has consented to a search involves a mixed question of law and fact ( People v. Valerio, 95 N.Y.2d 924, 925, 721 N.Y.S.2d 601, 744 N.E.2d 136 [2000] ). Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division's resolution of this question, the issue is beyond this Court's further review ( id.). Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. McFarlane

Court of Appeals of New York.
Aug 29, 2013
995 N.E.2d 845 (N.Y. 2013)
Case details for

People v. McFarlane

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Terrence McFARLANE, Respondent.

Court:Court of Appeals of New York.

Date published: Aug 29, 2013

Citations

995 N.E.2d 845 (N.Y. 2013)
995 N.E.2d 845
972 N.Y.S.2d 530
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5763

Citing Cases

People v. Xochimitl

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination as to whether police received…