People v. Crimmins
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Salaam (N.Y. 1993)
- People v. Jabaut (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Jabaut (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Sanabria (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Myers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Krivak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Page (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Sticht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Platten (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Mintiks v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Strawder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. Wilmot-Kay (Brighton Justice Court 1987)
- People v. Casiano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Ingram (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Casiano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Spivack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Davis (New York Supreme Court 1985)
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.
The court in submitting the voluntariness of the confession to the jury did not err in refusing to charge that the police had an obligation to let family members or friends communicate with a competent adult in custody (cf. People v Townsend, 33 NY2d 37; People v Bevilacqua, 45 NY2d 508; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Fuschino, 59 NY2d 91). We note that there was no evidence that these persons had retained counsel for the defendant. Nor was there any evidence that the defendant sought the assistance of these individuals or that the police discouraged him from doing so. There was only testimony that certain family members sought unsuccessfully to communicate with the defendant while he was being questioned by the police. Therefore the court’s refusal to give the charge requested by defense counsel did not constitute error.
The defendant also contends that the court erred during the suppression hearing in refusing to make factual findings as to whether the police isolated the defendant from family and friends seeking to communicate with him while he was being questioned. However, the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of such findings. The suppression court assumed for the purposes of the motion the essential truth of the defendant’s evidence and nevertheless found the confession was voluntary, as did the Appellate Division by its affirmance on this mixed question of law and fact.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.