New York Court of Appeals, 1982

People v. Wilson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 6, 1982

56 N.Y.2d 692; 436 N.E.2d 1321; 451 N.Y.S.2d 719; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3354

Cases that cite this one

38 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. McCoy (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1997)
People v. Cooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Ramos (N.Y. 2002)
People v. Borazzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. C.R. & D.W. (New York Supreme Court 2012)
People v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Commonwealth v. Miller (Massachusetts Superior Court 2002)
People v. Bradway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Williams (New York Supreme Court 2001)
People v. Hotchkiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Batista (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. DelRio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Sobchik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Stokes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Placencia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Aquendo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Ortlieb (N.Y. 1994)
People v. Ortlieb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Selby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Burkett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Melendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Horn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Boardman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)

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 affirmed.

After defendant had been booked and processed at the New York County Criminal Courts Building, the arresting officers appeared at the early case assessment bureau for the purpose of signing a complaint. No complaint had yet been drawn and Assistant District Attorney Mullady on duty at the bureau (which had been created through a Federal grant to evaluate felony and misdemeanor cases prior to their submission to the Criminal Court for arraignment) asked the officers to bring defendant to him. When defendant was produced, Mullady identified himself and proceeded to give defendant his constitutional preinterrogation warnings. Defendant waived his rights and agreed to answer Mullady’s questions. In the course of such questioning defendant made the inculpatory statement which he later sought to suppress.

Defendant does not contest the voluntariness of his waiver; instead he contends that in the circumstances his constitutional entitlement to counsel had become effective and accordingly that his inculpatory statement made in the absence of counsel should have been suppressed. We disagree. It is conceded that no accusatory instrument had been prepared or signed. Therefore, no criminal action had *694been commenced (CPL 1.20, subd 17). We cannot agree with defendant’s argument that because he was physically in police custody awaiting arraignment his right to counsel had attached, and no decision in our court so holds. There is nothing to suggest that the short delay in arraignment in this instance was designed to afford an opportunity for prearraignment interrogation or was otherwise calculated to deprive defendant of his right to counsel. To the contrary, the proof is that the delay in preparation of the complaint and thus in. arraignment was for the independent purpose of conforming to and implementing the terms of the Federal grant.

Defendant further contends that the showup identification made by the witness to the robbery when defendant was taken back to Nathan’s restaurant, the scene of the crime, should be suppressed on the ground that his return constituted an Illegal detention. This claim must be rejected in view of the affirmed finding of fact, for which there is support in the record, that defendant consented to accompany the officers back to the restaurant.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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