TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Bell

The People of the State of New York v. Robert L. Bell

People v. Bell, 407 N.E.2d 1340 (N.Y. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 3, 1980
Citations
407 N.E.2d 134050 N.Y.2d 869430 N.Y.S.2d 431980 N.Y. LEXIS 2432
Cited by 24

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted and the case remitted to the Jefferson County Court for further proceedings on the indictments.

The defendant arrested, arraigned and held in custody on one charge was questioned by the police about that charge and another unrelated incident. The hearing court properly held that the statement should be suppressed insofar as it relates to the charge on which the defendant was being held in custody (see People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479 ). We now hold that the remainder of the confession should be suppressed although it concerns an unrelated incident (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167 ; see, also, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ). The fact that the questioning may have been prompted by the defendant’s remarks does not render his answers spontaneous (People v Tompkins, 45 NY2d *871 748 ). We find no merit to the prosecutor’s argument that People v Rogers (supra), should not be applied retroactively. That decision was based on People v Hobson (supra), which has been applied to cases on appeal at the time the case was decided (see, e.g., People v Macedonio, 42 NY2d 944 ).

Chief Judge Coqke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Jasen concurs on constraint of People v Rogers ( 48 NY2d 167 ).

Order reversed, etc.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 31981: 111982: 31983: 11984: 11985: 31986: 11989: 119802026peak 1981 · 11

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Rivers438 N.E.2d 862 (N.Y. 1982)
  2. People v. Pepper423 N.E.2d 366 (N.Y. 1981)
  3. People v. Lanahan431 N.E.2d 624 (N.Y. 1981) · Dissent
  4. People v. Donovon107 A.D.2d 433 (1985)
  5. People v. Albro422 N.E.2d 496 (N.Y. 1981)
  6. People v. Medina146 A.D.2d 344 (1989) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. People v. Medina146 A.D.2d 344 (1989) · Dissent
  2. People v. Ringer118 A.D.2d 421 (1986)
  3. People v. Leonard113 A.D.2d 258 (1985)
  4. People v. Rosa65 N.Y. 380 (1985)
  5. People v. Donovon107 A.D.2d 433 (1985)
  6. People v. Rosa99 A.D.2d 963 (1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Rogers, 397 N.E.2d 709 (N.Y. 1979) 328
People v. Hobson, 348 N.E.2d 894 (N.Y. 1976) 416
People v. Settles, 385 N.E.2d 612 (N.Y. 1978) 403
People v. Samuels, 400 N.E.2d 1344 (N.Y. 1980) 292
People v. Macedonio, 366 N.E.2d 1355 (N.Y. 1977) 24
People v. Tompkins, 380 N.E.2d 311 (N.Y. 1978) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list