PEOPLE v. HURST (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eric D. HURST, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 31, 1999

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Lawrence J. Young, of counsel, Syracuse, for defendant-appellant. Cindy Foote Intschert, of counsel, Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, Watertown, for plaintiff-respondent.

County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress his statement to police concerning the location of the gun seized at the arrest scene. After he was arrested and placed in a police vehicle, defendant spontaneously stated that he had a gun and “should have blown his wife away”. In response to that statement, an officer asked defendant where the gun was located. Based on defendant's response, the police located a fully loaded and operational revolver behind some cedar trees in front of defendant's house. The hearing record established that a number of children, including defendant's children, resided in the neighborhood and that the questioning of defendant was justified by concerns for public safety (see, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550; People v. Williams, 191 A.D.2d 526, 595 N.Y.S.2d 61; People v. Waiters, 121 A.D.2d 414, 502 N.Y.S.2d 530, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 760, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 497 N.E.2d 719).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network