New York Court of Appeals, 1980

People v. Bell

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 3, 1980

50 N.Y.2d 869; 407 N.E.2d 1340; 430 N.Y.S.2d 43; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2432

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Zimmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
People v. Pepper (N.Y. 1981)
People v. Medina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Ringer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Rosa (N.Y. 1985)
People v. Donovon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Leonard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Rosa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Tindal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Rivers (N.Y. 1982)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
People v. Albro (N.Y. 1981)
People v. Lanahan (N.Y. 1981)
People v. Rosa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Catalano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Butler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Peoples (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Outlaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Townsend (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Knapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Curatolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
People v. Brathwaite (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
People v. Parker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted and the case remitted to the Jefferson County Court for further proceedings on the indictments.

The defendant arrested, arraigned and held in custody on one charge was questioned by the police about that charge and another unrelated incident. The hearing court properly held that the statement should be suppressed insofar as it relates to the charge on which the defendant was being held in custody (see People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479). We now hold that the remainder of the confession should be suppressed although it concerns an unrelated incident (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167; see, also, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218). The fact that the questioning may have been prompted by the defendant’s remarks does not render his answers spontaneous (People v Tompkins, 45 NY2d *871748). We find no merit to the prosecutor’s argument that People v Rogers (supra), should not be applied retroactively. That decision was based on People v Hobson (supra), which has been applied to cases on appeal at the time the case was decided (see, e.g., People v Macedonio, 42 NY2d 944).

Chief Judge Coqke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Jasen concurs on constraint of People v Rogers (48 NY2d 167).

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.