LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v COHEN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>090_0632, Police, Confession, Citgo, Search Warrant, Murder, Investigator, Robbery, Caliber, Crimes, Physical Evidence, Garage, Interrogation, Homicide, Suppress, Ny2d, Connection, Citgo Station, Lake George, Suppression, County Court, Appellate Division, Unrepresented Crime, Impermissible Questioning, Representing, Respondent, Evidence Seized Pursuant, Store Clerk, Laboratory Analysis , ContentID: 120251431

Case Documents
1 1997-10-30 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125340
8 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 8 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
POLICE
CONFESSION
CITGO
SEARCH WARRANT
COURT
MURDER
INVESTIGATOR
ROBBERY
CALIBER
CRIMES
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
GARAGE
INTERROGATION
HOMICIDE
SUPPRESS
NY2D
CONNECTION
CITGO STATION
LAKE GEORGE
SUPPRESSION
COUNTY COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION
UNREPRESENTED CRIME
IMPERMISSIBLE QUESTIONING
REPRESENTING
RESPONDENT
EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT
STORE CLERK
LABORATORY ANALYSIS


  THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. BENJAMIN E. COHEN, APPELLANT.

    90 N.Y.2d 632, 687 N.E.2d 1313, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1997).
    October 30, 1997

   3 No. 194

    (97 NY Int. 0188)
   Decided October 30, 1997
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Gary C. Hobbs, for appellant.
   John P.M. Wappett, for respondent.

    LEVINE, J.:


   Defendant appeals, leave having been granted by a Judge of this Court,
   from the denial of his omnibus motion to suppress his confession and
   physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, both obtained
   in connection with the November 27, 1994 robbery murder of the store
   clerk of a Citgo station mini mart at Exit 23 of the Northway in the
   Town of Lake George, WarrenCounty.

   During the initial police investigation of the Citgo homicide, the
   police recovered a spent bullet which laboratory analysis later
   determined had been fired from a .22 caliber older model gun. This
   information and the statement of an identified informant, Christopher
   Mackrodt, largely comprised the basis for the warrant. Mackrodt gave
   his statement with notice that any falsity would subject him to
   criminal sanctions under Penal Law

   § 210.45.

   Mackrodt related that, when visiting the home of codefendant David
   McCulloch and in the presence of defendant and codefendant Francis
   Anderson, he was shown: an older looking .22 caliber revolver, black
   colored with a wooden handle; a .357 caliber revolver; and a third gun
   which he described in appearance but could not otherwise identify. In
   his subsequent visits to the McCulloch residence, defendant, McCulloch
   and Anderson disclosed to Mackrodt that they had stolen the three guns
   from Thompson's Garage in Lake George Village, and that they were
SNIPPETS:
  • John P.M. Wappett, for respondent.
  • Defendant appeals, leave having been granted by a Judge of this Court, from the denial of his
  • During the initial police investigation of the Citgo homicide, the police recovered a spent
  • In his subsequent visits to the McCulloch residence, defendant, McCulloch and Anderson
  • Investigator William VanNess of the Warren County Sheriff's
  • The suppression court made findings that defendant willingly accompanied the officers, and
  • This pattern of questioning continued throughout the interrogation, until defendant gave a
  • Among the grounds urged before County Court regarding the seizure of physical evidence was
  • The Appellate Division also rejected defendant's argument that entry of counsel on the
  • VanNess did not swear or affirm to the truth of his informant's statement, nor was he
  • Our case law involving police interrogation of a suspect on the subject of one crime after
  • interrogation on the unrepresented crime is prohibited even in the absence of direct
  • the interrogation actually entailed an infringement of the suspect's state constitutional
  •    |