People v. De Rennzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Rennzio

25 A.D.2d 652, 268 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 652 (People v. De Rennzio) 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. De Rennzio, 25 A.D.2d 652, 268 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment convicting defendant of the crime of murder, first degree, unanimously affirmed. We discuss briefly one issue raised by appellant. He and others entered a pawnshop during business hours and attempted a robbery. Upon the arrival of police officers appellant and the others fled but in the course thereof an officer was shot and killed. Defendant made several exculpatory statements but on the same day an indictment was returned an inculpatory statement was made. While some minor objections were made to certain questions and answers on the ground of irrelevancy no [653]*653objection was made to the receipt in evidence of the statement. This may well have been no oversight as defense counsel in his summation made forceful use thereof to support the principal, if not only, defense — (1) that the robbery had been effectively abandoned so that there could be no finding of a felony murder and (2) that the fatal shot was not fired by appellant. The admission in evidence, over objection, of a postindietment statement is reversible error (People v. Di Biasi, 7 N Y 2d 544) but herein the absence of such objection “ no question of law has been preserved for our review ” (People v. Friola, 11 N Y 2d 157, 159). We recognize our right to reverse in the interests of justice (People v. Kelly, 12 N Y 2d 248) but we find nothing in this record that moves us towards such a conclusion. Lastly, there having been no objections to the receipt of the several statements, the trial court not having charged on the issue of voluntariness and there having been no exception thereto or request so to charge there is no necessity for a nonjury hearing on this issue. (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72.)

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment convicting defendant of the crime of murder, first degree, unanimously affirmed. We discuss briefly one issue raised by appellant. He and others entered a pawnshop during business hours and attempted a robbery. Upon the arrival of police officers appellant and the others fled but in the course thereof an officer was shot and killed. Defendant made several exculpatory statements but on the same day an indictment was returned an inculpatory statement was made. While some minor objections were made to certain questions and answers on the ground of irrelevancy no [653]*653objection was made to the receipt in evidence of the statement. This may well have been no oversight as defense counsel in his summation made forceful use thereof to support the principal, if not only, defense — (1) that the robbery had been effectively abandoned so that there could be no finding of a felony murder and (2) that the fatal shot was not fired by appellant. The admission in evidence, over objection, of a postindietment statement is reversible error (People v. Di Biasi, 7 N Y 2d 544) but herein the absence of such objection “ no question of law has been preserved for our review ” (People v. Friola, 11 N Y 2d 157, 159). We recognize our right to reverse in the interests of justice (People v. Kelly, 12 N Y 2d 248) but we find nothing in this record that moves us towards such a conclusion. Lastly, there having been no objections to the receipt of the several statements, the trial court not having charged on the issue of voluntariness and there having been no exception thereto or request so to charge there is no necessity for a nonjury hearing on this issue. (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72.)

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 652, 268 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-rennzio-nyappdiv-1966.