From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williamson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 9, 1980
51 N.Y.2d 801 (N.Y. 1980)

Opinion

Argued September 4, 1980

Decided October 9, 1980

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, AARON F. GOLDSTEIN, J.

Michael S. Winokur for appellant.

John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Jeffrey A. Granat of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The only contention advanced by appellant is that she was subjected to a custodial interrogation, and that accordingly, in the absence of having been advised of her constitutional preinterrogation rights, all statements made by her should have been suppressed. Inasmuch as the determination by the suppression court that there was no custodial interrogation (generally a factual issue) has been affirmed by the Appellate Division we could overturn it only if we were to conclude as a matter of law that the proof was insufficient to establish that the interrogation was noncustodial (cf. People v Oden, 36 N.Y.2d 382). This we cannot do on the record before us, particularly inasmuch as the police came to appellant's home at her invitation.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Williamson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 9, 1980
51 N.Y.2d 801 (N.Y. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Williamson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DOROTHY WILLIAMSON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 9, 1980

Citations

51 N.Y.2d 801 (N.Y. 1980)
433 N.Y.S.2d 93
412 N.E.2d 1319

Citing Cases

People v. Centano

The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact (see, People v Morales, 65…

People v. Turkenich

In deciding whether the accused was in custody prior to being interrogated, the subjective beliefs of the…