People v. Cender
Opinion
The defendant was tried with a codefendant and was implicated by name in the latter’s confession which was received into evidence. Since this confession was held by the Appellate Division to be inadmissible and a new trial was ordered as to the codefendant, the Appellate Division should also have reversed this defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial in the interests of justice. (See, e.g., People v. Morgan, 17 N Y 2d 696; People v. Donovan, 13 N Y 2d 148, 154; People v. Robinson, 13 N Y 2d 296; People v. Rodriguez, 11 N Y 2d 279, 285; People v. Noble, 9 N Y 2d 571, 575; People v. Waterman, 9 N Y 2d 561, 567; People v. Abel, 298 N. Y. 333; People v. Rudish, 294 N. Y. 500.)
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
219 N.E.2d 200 (People v. Cender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.