People State New York v. James D. Patterson

Examination of the record discloses that defendants motion to suppress his statements made to the police was predicated solely on the contention that the statements had not been made voluntarily and that their introduction in evidence would violate defendants constitutional privilege against self incrimination. There are affirmed factual determinations that the statements were voluntarily made, that constitutional preinterrogation warnings were duly given when required, and that there was no violation of defendants constitutional rights. This circumstance places defendants contentions on this ground beyond the reach of our appellate review inasmuch as the affirmed findings are not infected with error as a matter of law.