Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. EDDIE LEE KING, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Trial Judge found that defendant's cotenant consented to the entry of the detectives into the apartment but that neither she nor anyone else consented to their entry into defendant's bedroom. That finding, having been implicitly affirmed by the Appellate Division's memorandum, is beyond our power of review ( People v Volpe, 60 N.Y.2d 803; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1032).

Defendant's arrest having been illegal, the question whether his statement made at the precinct station within three hours thereafter was the fruit of the illegal arrest presented a mixed question of law and fact, which is also beyond our power to review ( People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470; see Brown v Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 11.4, p 256, 1984 Pocket Part).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. KING
(Mar 22, 1984)