People v. Peoples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peoples

117 A.D.2d 977, 499 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53215

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 977 (People v. Peoples) 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. Peoples, 117 A.D.2d 977, 499 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s inculpatory statement to his brother in the presence of a police officer was attenuated from his two earlier sworn statements which were suppressed because they were obtained outside the presence of counsel (see, People v Peoples, 80 AD2d 722). His statement under review was voluntary, defendant was clearly aware of the presence of the police officer, and the statement was neither the result of renewed police interrogation following the suppressed earlier statements nor the product of a single continuous chain of events. There was no evidence of surreptitious or devious behavior on the part of the police, no police "agent” [978]*978was involved, and the statement was clearly probative. Further, the error in the trial court’s charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial or contribute to his conviction; it was not preserved for review and we decline to exercise our discretion and reverse the conviction in "the interest of justice” (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Finally, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury verdict. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—murder, second degree, and criminal possession of weapon.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s inculpatory statement to his brother in the presence of a police officer was attenuated from his two earlier sworn statements which were suppressed because they were obtained outside the presence of counsel (see, People v Peoples, 80 AD2d 722). His statement under review was voluntary, defendant was clearly aware of the presence of the police officer, and the statement was neither the result of renewed police interrogation following the suppressed earlier statements nor the product of a single continuous chain of events. There was no evidence of surreptitious or devious behavior on the part of the police, no police "agent” [978]*978was involved, and the statement was clearly probative. Further, the error in the trial court’s charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial or contribute to his conviction; it was not preserved for review and we decline to exercise our discretion and reverse the conviction in "the interest of justice” (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Finally, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury verdict. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—murder, second degree, and criminal possession of weapon.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 977, 499 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peoples-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack