People v. Panaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Panaro

213 A.D.2d 1036, 624 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1036 (People v. Panaro) 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. Panaro, 213 A.D.2d 1036, 624 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in precluding a defense witness from testifying that she heard a codefendant say that he had shot the victim because the victim was an informant from out of State. The statement was not admissible as a declaration against the codefendant’s penal interest because there were no supporting circumstances present independent of the statement itself to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). In the absence of such supporting evidence, the exclusion of the proffered testimony does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see, People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962, 964; cf., Green v Georgia, 442 US 95, 97). There was sufficient nonaccomplice evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement. "The corroborative glue does not require independent proof of the elements of the crime to sustain a conviction; it just has to bind the accomplice evidence to the defendant” (People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 293). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that each is lacking in

[1037]*1037merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in precluding a defense witness from testifying that she heard a codefendant say that he had shot the victim because the victim was an informant from out of State. The statement was not admissible as a declaration against the codefendant’s penal interest because there were no supporting circumstances present independent of the statement itself to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). In the absence of such supporting evidence, the exclusion of the proffered testimony does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see, People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962, 964; cf., Green v Georgia, 442 US 95, 97). There was sufficient nonaccomplice evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement. "The corroborative glue does not require independent proof of the elements of the crime to sustain a conviction; it just has to bind the accomplice evidence to the defendant” (People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 293). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that each is lacking in

[1037]*1037merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1036, 624 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-panaro-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack