New York Court of Appeals, 1983

People v. Harrell

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 26, 1983

59 N.Y.2d 620; 449 N.E.2d 1263; 463 N.Y.S.2d 185; 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3031

Cases that cite this one

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

State v. Thompson (Minn. 2010)
Belmer v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2001)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (3d Cir. 1997)
People v. Clark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Walker v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
State v. Willoughby (Me. 1987)
People v. Edwards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Wynn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Noble (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
People v. Kemp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
People v. Rankin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Stover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Stover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Copp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Copp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Acevedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Fagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Swaby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Derbyshire v. Safir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Hilligas (New York Supreme Court 1998)
In re: Grand Jury (3d Cir. 1997)
People v. DiLenola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
In re Inquest Proceedings (Vt. 1996)

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.

Not having been raised either at the suppression hearing or as a ground for objection to the admission of the evidence at trial, defendant’s present contention that the statement made in his jail cell by him to his mother was inadmissible as having been obtained in violation of a purported parent-child privilege has not been preserved for our review. Accordingly, we have no occasion to address defendant’s claim that such a privilege should be recognized.

Both the suppression court and the Appellate Division found that the statement made in the police car by defendant to Heath was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. In view of the evidence in the record supporting this finding we cannot say that it was erroneous as a matter of law.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict that defendant was guilty on all counts charged.

*622No timely protest by way of request or exception having been registered with regard thereto, defendant’s present assertions that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury as to the defense of justification and in other respects have not been preserved for our review.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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