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. Luis SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered January 7, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement since it was sufficiently attenuated from the taint of a warrantless arrest made in violation of Payton v. New York (445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639). The videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney was taken about six hours after the arrest and was made after Miranda warnings and waivers. There was also a substantial break of more than three hours between an earlier statement to a detective, which the court suppressed, and the videotaped statement, which was conducted by a different interrogator (see People v. Chen Ren Jie, 280 A.D.2d 301, 720 N.Y.S.2d 135, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 798, 726 N.Y.S.2d 376, 750 N.E.2d 78). The record also supports the court's finding that the Payton violation was not flagrant.
The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge as to the detective who took defendant's initial written statement, which had been suppressed but which was nevertheless elicited by defendant at trial as a tactical device. The court correctly concluded that the witness could not provide any noncumulative testimony (see People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583).
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: January 06, 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)