Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: KAREEM B., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress his statement to the police, since the totality of the circumstances establishes that the statement was voluntarily made (see Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-288, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 [1991]; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38-39, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318 [1977] ). A detective's preliminary explanation of the Family Court process did not contain any promise that appellant would receive more favorable treatment if he confessed or less favorable treatment if he failed to do so. The detectives' statements to appellant that they did not believe his initial story were not unduly coercive.
The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility, in which it accepted the victim's account of the incident.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 23, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)