People v. Bruen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bruen

119 A.D.2d 685, 500 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55603

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 685 (People v. Bruen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bruen, 119 A.D.2d 685, 500 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the County Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), both rendered August 28, 1981, convicting them of manslaughter in the first degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The defendants Bruen and Fisher brought the lifeless body of Bruen’s four-year-old daughter to the Peekskill Community Hospital emergency room claiming that she had fallen down the stairs. When emergency room personnel observed numerous bruises all over the child’s body the police were called. While separate interviews were conducted with each defendant, police officers were dispatched to Bruen’s apartment house where she claimed a neighbor was taking care of her other two children. Upon learning that the six-year-old twins were not with the neighbor but were alone in Bruen’s apartment, the officers had the neighbor coax the children into opening the door. As the neighbor dressed the children, the officers stood in the hallway just inside the door and observed a wooden paddle which the neighbor said she had seen Bruen use to hit her deceased child. The officers’ seizure of the paddle, in plain view from where they stood inside the apartment, was not in violation of the defendants’ 4th Amendment rights due to the emergency requiring their presence, i.e., to ensure the safety of Bruen’s other children (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953; People v Friedman, 95 AD2d 862).

We find no evidence that the defendants’ statements to the police were involuntary and note that each written statement is preceded by a signed waiver of constitutional rights. The [686]*686defendants’ admissions of hitting the child, the medical evidence and the testimony of several neighbors and baby-sitters who witnessed acts of abuse by both defendants on the child, negated the defenses of accident and mistake and more than adequately established the requisite intent to inflict serious physical injury to support the verdicts.

We have examined the defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the County Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), both rendered August 28, 1981, convicting them of manslaughter in the first degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The defendants Bruen and Fisher brought the lifeless body of Bruen’s four-year-old daughter to the Peekskill Community Hospital emergency room claiming that she had fallen down the stairs. When emergency room personnel observed numerous bruises all over the child’s body the police were called. While separate interviews were conducted with each defendant, police officers were dispatched to Bruen’s apartment house where she claimed a neighbor was taking care of her other two children. Upon learning that the six-year-old twins were not with the neighbor but were alone in Bruen’s apartment, the officers had the neighbor coax the children into opening the door. As the neighbor dressed the children, the officers stood in the hallway just inside the door and observed a wooden paddle which the neighbor said she had seen Bruen use to hit her deceased child. The officers’ seizure of the paddle, in plain view from where they stood inside the apartment, was not in violation of the defendants’ 4th Amendment rights due to the emergency requiring their presence, i.e., to ensure the safety of Bruen’s other children (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953; People v Friedman, 95 AD2d 862).

We find no evidence that the defendants’ statements to the police were involuntary and note that each written statement is preceded by a signed waiver of constitutional rights. The [686]*686defendants’ admissions of hitting the child, the medical evidence and the testimony of several neighbors and baby-sitters who witnessed acts of abuse by both defendants on the child, negated the defenses of accident and mistake and more than adequately established the requisite intent to inflict serious physical injury to support the verdicts.

We have examined the defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 685, 500 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bruen-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack