People v. Norman

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bellissimo

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50831 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)

    The DVD reveals that, in the first phase of the conversation, defendant, on his own initiative, asserted that his ex-wife had "been tormenting and torturing" their child. This was a spontaneous statement not requiring suppression under Miranda ( see People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 293-295; People v Norman , 77 AD3d 497, 498). In the next phase of the conversation, defendant first informed the police officer that he had "called [his] attorney already."

  2. People v. Mercado

    63 Misc. 3d 1 (N.Y. App. Term 2019)

    ch reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration" ( People v. Adams , 157 A.D.3d 897, 898, 66 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2018] [and citations therein]; see alsoPeople v. Perino , 19 N.Y.3d 85, 90, 945 N.Y.S.2d 602, 968 N.E.2d 956 [2012] ), that is, it was "not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed" ( People v. Maerling , 46 N.Y.2d 289, 302-303, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245 [1978] ). There is no evidence that defendant's request to be given a desk appearance ticket rather than be taken to the police precinct was induced by any prior police statement or conduct that could reasonably have been expected to provoke it, and the detective's response, "Sure," followed by the qualification that the detective would first determine that no outstanding warrants existed, cannot be "viewed as one designed to elicit some further reply by defendant" ( People v. Lynes , 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405 [1980] ; see e.g.People v. Norman , 77 A.D.3d 497, 498, 909 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2010] ). Defendant's subsequent comment that he had purchased "dope" from the driver of the vehicle in which defendant had been sitting was also not preceded by any police questioning or conduct that reasonably could be expected to induce it.

  3. People v. Sosa

    5 N.Y.S.3d 329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    Moreover, the defendant's unsolicited statements, clearly blurted out, and not in response to any police questioning, were entirely spontaneous. See People v. Norman, 77 AD3d 497 (1st Dept.2010) ; People v. Burton, 57 AD3d 261 (1st Dept.2008) ; see also People v. Vasquez, 235 A.D.2d 322 (1997) ; People v. Davis, 234 A.D.2d 88 (1st Dept.1996) ; People v. Tarleton, 184 A.D.2d 463 (1st Dept.1992) ; see generally People v. Rodriguez, 55 AD3d 351 (1st Dept.2008). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

  4. People v. DeSilva

    997 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    At some point during arrest processing, while the defendant was in a holding cell, he stated to Abdullah, in sum and substance, they got their money back. Prior to the defendant's statement, Abdullah had not been speaking to him and had not asked any questions. The hearing evidence establishes, therefore, that the defendant's unsolicited statement was entirely spontaneous. See People v. Norman, 77 AD3d 497 (1st Dept.2010) ; People v. Burton, 57 AD3d 261 (1st Dept.2008) ; see also People v. Vasquez, 235 A.D.2d 322 (1997) ; People v. Davis, 234 A.D.2d 88 (1st Dept.1996) ; People v.. Tarleton, 184 A.D.2d 463 (1st Dept.1992) ; see generally People v. Rodriguez, 55 AD3d 351 (1st Dept.2008). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

  5. People v. Robinson

    39 Misc. 3d 1234 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    His statements, therefore, were not in response to any police questioning and, thus were genuinely spontaneous. See People v. Norman, 77 AD3d 497 (1st Dept.2010); People v. Burton, 57 AD3d 261 (1st Dept.2008); see also People v. Vasquez, 235 A.D.2d 322 (1997); People v. Davis, 234 A.D.2d 88 (1st Dept.1996); People v. Tarleton, 184 A.D.2d 463 (1st Dept.1992).

  6. People v. Norbert

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    For this reason, Mr. Norbert's statements at Staten Island University Hospital are not tainted by the initial question; nor are his statements made in his hospital room ten days later, on September 27th. These are spontaneous statements made by the defendant without prompting and are admissible ( People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476; People v Ziegler, 78 AD3d 545; People v Norman , 77 AD3d 497).