People v. Dunn
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Andrews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. Stephans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Lopez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Cleverin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Matos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matter of Jaime E. S. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Knapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Knapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Tavares-Nunez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Plater (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Burgess (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Dupree (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Layboult (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of the first degree manslaughter and aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree of a fellow inmate at Rockland Psychiatric Center. Following the assault, he was seized by hospital personnel and transferred to the custody of the State Police. While under guard of a hospital security officer — and, as the lower court found, without any conduct on the part of the officer that was likely to elicit a statement — defendant made certain inculpatory statements that the hearing court ruled spontaneous, and therefore admissible. While defendant argued that subsequent statements were involuntary because defendant’s mental incapacity made it impossible for him to understand the consequences of a Miranda warning, he did not raise either at the suppression hearing or as a ground for objection to the admission of the evidence at trial his present contention on appeal: that as a result of his mental incapacity, he was incapable of uttering his initial, "spontaneous” statement. Although the Appellate Division considered, in the interests of justice, whether defendant’s mental incapacity might render him particularly vulnerable to coercion, that issue is not preserved for us as a question of law.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.