People v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curtis

218 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283

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

DecidedAugust 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 667 (People v. Curtis) 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. Curtis, 218 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his audiotaped statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress his audiotaped statement to the police. Considering the strength of the evidence against the defendant, including the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the crime, and that the defendant’s testimony was more inculpatory than his audiotaped statement, any error in admitting the statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Carter, 197 AD2d 530, 531).

In view of the violent nature of the offense and the defendant’s lack of remorse, we cannot say that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; People v Poe, 158 AD2d 558, 559). Thompson, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur. [See, 160 Misc 2d 508.]

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 County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his audiotaped statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress his audiotaped statement to the police. Considering the strength of the evidence against the defendant, including the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the crime, and that the defendant’s testimony was more inculpatory than his audiotaped statement, any error in admitting the statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Carter, 197 AD2d 530, 531).

In view of the violent nature of the offense and the defendant’s lack of remorse, we cannot say that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; People v Poe, 158 AD2d 558, 559). Thompson, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur. [See, 160 Misc 2d 508.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curtis-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack