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.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jorge GUTIERREZ, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered January 29, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ). The officer was not required to administer Miranda warnings because defendant, who was detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop, was not in custody for Miranda purposes (People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 747, 523 N.Y.S.2d 915, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 899, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 523 N.E.2d 316 [1988], citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 [1984] ).
During trial, the court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from eliciting the absence of Miranda warnings. Since, as noted, such warnings were not required, this was not a proper issue for the jury. Since there was no other factual issue raised at trial concerning the voluntariness of defendant's statement, the court was not required to instruct the jury on that subject (see People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288-289, 296 N.Y.S.2d 345, 244 N.E.2d 42 [1968]; People v. Taylor, 135 A.D.2d 202, 524 N.Y.S.2d 708 [1988], lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1034, 530 N.Y.S.2d 569, 526 N.E.2d 61 [1988] ).
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: December 21, 2004
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)