People v. Burnie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burnie

214 A.D.2d 580, 624 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3482

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

DecidedApril 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 580 (People v. Burnie) 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. Burnie, 214 A.D.2d 580, 624 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered June 18, 1991, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[581]*581Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that it was reversible error to admit into evidence testimony of a witness whose identity was obtained as a result of statements made by the defendant which had been suppressed by the hearing court. We disagree. The record shows that the witness made the independent decision to testify against the defendant. Thus, the witness’s testimony was sufficiently attenuated from the illegality to be admissible at trial (see, United States v Ceccolini, 435 US 268; People v McGrath, 46 NY2d 12, cert denied 440 US 972). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered June 18, 1991, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[581]*581Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that it was reversible error to admit into evidence testimony of a witness whose identity was obtained as a result of statements made by the defendant which had been suppressed by the hearing court. We disagree. The record shows that the witness made the independent decision to testify against the defendant. Thus, the witness’s testimony was sufficiently attenuated from the illegality to be admissible at trial (see, United States v Ceccolini, 435 US 268; People v McGrath, 46 NY2d 12, cert denied 440 US 972). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 580, 624 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burnie-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack