People v. Boodie

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Boodie

257 N.E.2d 657, 26 N.Y.2d 779, 309 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1520

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 N.E.2d 657 (People v. Boodie) 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

People v. Boodie, 257 N.E.2d 657, 26 N.Y.2d 779, 309 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1520 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed. The police obtained a statement from the defendant, following his arraignment, in the absence of his assigned counsel. This was improper, and such statement would not have been admissible in evidence against the defendant. However, the District Attorney was privileged to employ it, in cross-examining the defendant, for impeachment purposes. (See People v. Hudson, 26 N Y 2d 781; People v. Harris, 25 N Y 2d 175; People v. Kulis, 18 N Y 2d 318.) In any event, even if use of the statement were to be regarded as error, it would be deemed harmless since it did not incriminate the defendant. (See, e.g., People v. Miles, 23 N Y 2d 527, 544.)

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Brietel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed. The police obtained a statement from the defendant, following his arraignment, in the absence of his assigned counsel. This was improper, and such statement would not have been admissible in evidence against the defendant. However, the District Attorney was privileged to employ it, in cross-examining the defendant, for impeachment purposes. (See People v. Hudson, 26 N Y 2d 781; People v. Harris, 25 N Y 2d 175; People v. Kulis, 18 N Y 2d 318.) In any event, even if use of the statement were to be regarded as error, it would be deemed harmless since it did not incriminate the defendant. (See, e.g., People v. Miles, 23 N Y 2d 527, 544.)

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Brietel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 N.E.2d 657, 26 N.Y.2d 779, 309 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boodie-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack