In re Samuel E. L.

New York Court of Appeals

In re Samuel E. L.

489 N.E.2d 1279, 66 N.Y.2d 984, 499 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18344

DecidedDecember 17, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 489 N.E.2d 1279 (In re Samuel E. L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Samuel E. L., 489 N.E.2d 1279, 66 N.Y.2d 984, 499 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18344 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Even if the youth counselor’s testimony concerning an admission made by appellant should have been suppressed as elicited in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), a question we need hot reach, the adjudication of delinquency should, nonetheless, be affirmed. We agree with the lower courts that the evidence, even without this admission, was sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trial Judge explicitly stated that he reached the determination of guilt without reference to the youth counsel- or’s testimony, therefore, the admission of that testimony, even if in error, was harmless.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Even if the youth counselor’s testimony concerning an admission made by appellant should have been suppressed as elicited in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), a question we need hot reach, the adjudication of delinquency should, nonetheless, be affirmed. We agree with the lower courts that the evidence, even without this admission, was sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trial Judge explicitly stated that he reached the determination of guilt without reference to the youth counsel- or’s testimony, therefore, the admission of that testimony, even if in error, was harmless.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 N.E.2d 1279, 66 N.Y.2d 984, 499 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-e-l-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack