People v. Greene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Greene

78 A.D.2d 904, 433 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13663

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Greene) 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. Greene, 78 A.D.2d 904, 433 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 12, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The postarrest statements made by defendant in response to the arresting officer’s inquiry should have been suppressed due to the officer’s failure to first advise him of his Miranda rights (see People v Whyte, 71 AD2d 631). However, we find that the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Moreover, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendants conviction” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,237) or that the admission into evidence of defendant’s statements contributed thereto (People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222,226). Thus, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 12, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The postarrest statements made by defendant in response to the arresting officer’s inquiry should have been suppressed due to the officer’s failure to first advise him of his Miranda rights (see People v Whyte, 71 AD2d 631). However, we find that the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Moreover, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendants conviction” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,237) or that the admission into evidence of defendant’s statements contributed thereto (People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222,226). Thus, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 904, 433 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-greene-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack