People v. Brown

124 A.D.2d 973, 508 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62285
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Brown. Read the opinion of the Court — 104 A.D.2d 696

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant’s contentions lack merit. There was no unnecessary delay in arraignment and the evidence at the suppression hearing fully supports the court’s determination that defendant’s statement was voluntarily given. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to sever his trial from that of his two codefendants since the statements of all three defendants were interlocking. The exception to the Bruton rule for interlocking confessions applies, even though defendant repudiated his confession (see, People v Cruz, 66 NY2d 61, 72). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

People v. Brown, 124 A.D.2d 973, 508 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

124 A.D.2d 973 (People v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Cruz
485 N.E.2d 221 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)