People v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muhammad

17 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3687

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

DecidedApril 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 139 (People v. Muhammad) 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. Muhammad, 17 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered August 5, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The introduction of a nontestifying codefendant’s plea allocution violated Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]). This evidence was clearly received for its truth with regard to the issue of whether or not a robbery occurred, and the record fails to support the People’s arguments in favor of its admissibility. However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see e.g. People v Hopkins, 13 AD3d 303 [2004]). Without reference to the inadmissible plea allocution, there was overwhelming evidence compelling the conclusion that the incident in question was a robbery, and not an altercation as claimed by defendant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered August 5, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The introduction of a nontestifying codefendant’s plea allocution violated Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]). This evidence was clearly received for its truth with regard to the issue of whether or not a robbery occurred, and the record fails to support the People’s arguments in favor of its admissibility. However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see e.g. People v Hopkins, 13 AD3d 303 [2004]). Without reference to the inadmissible plea allocution, there was overwhelming evidence compelling the conclusion that the incident in question was a robbery, and not an altercation as claimed by defendant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 828, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muhammad-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack