People v. Keith A. U

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keith A. U

47 A.D.2d 791, 365 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9106

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 791 (People v. Keith A. U) 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. Keith A. U, 47 A.D.2d 791, 365 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of- the County Court of Pulton County, rendered March 29, 1974, adjudging, defendant to, be la youthful offender. Defendant; age 16, was charged with the crime of arson, second "degree, for allegedly starting a fire in the bam of one '£>kiff by whom he was employed. After a trial, he was found guilty of arson, fourth degree. On this appeal he raises several issues. The record reveals -that, at the time of. the fire, defendant [792]*792was living at the Tryon School for Boys, and that the day after the fire, he signed a confession. He contends that the confession was not. a voluntary one. We disagree. e The interview! by the State troopers lasted about one hour and was in the presence of a supervisor of the school. There is no evidence of promises, threats, coercion, force or other impropriety. He. was apprised of his Miranda rights before giving, his statement. As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the crime of arson in the fourth degree, the record justifies ¿ finding by the jury that defendant threw .a lit cigarette into' the upstairs hayloft knowing it was lit and without caring whether a fire started therefrom. From stich an act the jury could infer the necessary intent. Furthermore, the record also reveals sufficient proof outside the. confession do establish- that defendant started the fire. There is proof that defendant was the only one in -the upper loft of the bam where the fire started) and that the wiring in the upper bam had been disconnected. Defendant further contends that' a remark by a witness that defendant liked to start fires was prejudicial'and that the court should have granted a mistrial. This contention also lacks merit for the record demonstrate that the information was elicited by defendant’s attorney, and the court immediately instructed the jury to disregard it. We have carefully examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them unpersuasive; ■Considering the record in its entirety, we are -of the opinion that there, is sufficient proof to justify the jury’s verdict of guilty, and the judgment should be.' affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and. Larkin, JJ., coneuri

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

Appeal from a judgment of- the County Court of Pulton County, rendered March 29, 1974, adjudging, defendant to, be la youthful offender. Defendant; age 16, was charged with the crime of arson, second "degree, for allegedly starting a fire in the bam of one '£>kiff by whom he was employed. After a trial, he was found guilty of arson, fourth degree. On this appeal he raises several issues. The record reveals -that, at the time of. the fire, defendant [792]*792was living at the Tryon School for Boys, and that the day after the fire, he signed a confession. He contends that the confession was not. a voluntary one. We disagree. e The interview! by the State troopers lasted about one hour and was in the presence of a supervisor of the school. There is no evidence of promises, threats, coercion, force or other impropriety. He. was apprised of his Miranda rights before giving, his statement. As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the crime of arson in the fourth degree, the record justifies ¿ finding by the jury that defendant threw .a lit cigarette into' the upstairs hayloft knowing it was lit and without caring whether a fire started therefrom. From stich an act the jury could infer the necessary intent. Furthermore, the record also reveals sufficient proof outside the. confession do establish- that defendant started the fire. There is proof that defendant was the only one in -the upper loft of the bam where the fire started) and that the wiring in the upper bam had been disconnected. Defendant further contends that' a remark by a witness that defendant liked to start fires was prejudicial'and that the court should have granted a mistrial. This contention also lacks merit for the record demonstrate that the information was elicited by defendant’s attorney, and the court immediately instructed the jury to disregard it. We have carefully examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them unpersuasive; ■Considering the record in its entirety, we are -of the opinion that there, is sufficient proof to justify the jury’s verdict of guilty, and the judgment should be.' affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and. Larkin, JJ., coneuri

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 791, 365 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keith-a-u-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack