People v. Johnson
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. White (New York Supreme Court 2017)
- The People v. Jin Cheng Lin (N.Y. 2016)
- People v. Lackey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Ramos (N.Y. 2002)
- People v. Hotchkiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Scott (N.Y. 1995)
- People v. Nunez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Gonzalez (New York Supreme Court 1991)
- People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Pipkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. McCoy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Ridgeway (N.Y. 1985)
- People v. Glinsman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Bernacet (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Ridgeway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Crosby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Fisher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Burgos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- People v. Cypriano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- People v. Camacho (New York Supreme Court 1980)
- People v. Kocik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- People v. Waddy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- People v. Cunningham (New York County Courts 1978)
- People v. Anderson (N.Y. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Whether defendant’s confession was voluntarily given and thus admissible against him involved only a factual determination, which having been made in favor of the People at County Court and thereafter affirmed at the Appellate Division, is beyond the scope of our review. In passing we observe that no claim was advanced at the suppression hearing based on assertions that defendant had been illegally detained. Moreover illegality, if any, of a detention is only one of the factors to be considered on the issue of voluntariness (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590).
Similarly the delay in defendant’s arraignment and the sufficiency of the preinterrogation admonitions involved factual resolutions which are now beyond our reach. As to the latter, while we do not say that preinterrogation admonitions may never be so narrowly focused as not to extend beyond such focus, we cannot conclude that as a matter of law the admonitions given this defendant were subject to any such deficiency.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.