TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Calhoun

The People of the State of New York v. Ernest Calhoun

People v. Calhoun, 73 A.D.2d 972 (1980)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 28, 1980
Citations
73 A.D.2d 972424 N.Y.S.2d 2471980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9912

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 7, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report in accordance with the following memorandum and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. It is clear that when the defendant was handcuffed and taken to the police station he was arrested and therefore "seized” within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 ). Nevertheless, no determination was ever made as to the legality of the arrest. Instead, the scope of the pretrial Huntley hearing was limited exclusively to the issue of whether the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The court held that the defendant’s detention was not an arrest and, consequently, the People did not develop proof, and the court did not rule, on the question of whether the detention was supported by the requisite probable cause. A statement, voluntary under Fifth Amendment standards, will nevertheless be suppressed if it has been obtained through the exploitation of an illegal arrest (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590 ). On the record before us, we are unable to resolve the issue of the admissibility of the defendant’s statements. Accordingly, we remand for a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause. If the trial court finds that the arrest was improper, it must then determine whether the defendant’s statements must be excluded as the fruit of an illegal detention or whether there was sufficient attenuation to sustain the admissibility of the statements (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 642-643 ). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 41981: 41985: 11988: 11990: 22011: 119802026peak 1980 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McLemore v. State562 So. 2d 639 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
  2. Phillips v. State760 P.2d 388 (Wyo. 1988)
  3. People v. Burns75 A.D.2d 899 (1980)
  4. People v. Bush77 A.D.2d 884 (1980)
  5. Bradley v. State494 So. 2d 750 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
  6. People v. Jones81 A.D.2d 22 (1981)

Most recent

  1. People v. Wachausen33 Misc. 3d 10 (2011)
  2. Darden v. State571 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
  3. McLemore v. State562 So. 2d 639 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
  4. Phillips v. State760 P.2d 388 (Wyo. 1988)
  5. Bradley v. State494 So. 2d 750 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
  6. People v. Cappiello85 A.D.2d 608 (1981)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) 3,706
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) 2,957
People v. Havelka, 384 N.E.2d 1269 (N.Y. 1978) 198

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