People v. Poole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Poole

277 A.D.2d 122, 717 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12123

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 122 (People v. Poole) 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. Poole, 277 A.D.2d 122, 717 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life and a $5,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The plea allocution of defendant’s nontestifying accomplice was properly received in evidence (People v Thomas, 68 NY2d 194, cert denied 480 US 948). As the court instructed the jury, the allocution was received solely to establish this accomplice’s own participation in the crime, a matter placed in issue by defendant. Nothing in the allocution was contrived as a device to implicate defendant, and the plea court’s use, in establishing the factual basis of the accomplice’s plea, of the statutory language that a “participant” caused the death of the victim did not, in context, imply that defendant was such participant (compare, People v Blades, 93 NY2d 166, 174-175). The accomplice’s admission of his own participation was clearly against his penal interest, and the fact that the accomplice had entered into a cooperation agreement, ultimately unfulfilled, did not render his plea allocution any less reliable, as proof of his own guilt, than any other allocution made in connection with a favorable plea bargain (compare, People v Thomas, supra, at 198-199, with People v Blades, supra, at 175-176). The allocution’s reliability was not undermined by the accomplice’s pro se motion to take back his guilty plea, since the accomplice had withdrawn that motion prior to the receipt of his plea allocution in evidence at defendant’s trial, and since there is no indication that the motion had any merit. Furthermore, the plea allocution was thoroughly corroborated by other evidence admitted at defendant’s trial, including the testimony of another accomplice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life and a $5,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The plea allocution of defendant’s nontestifying accomplice was properly received in evidence (People v Thomas, 68 NY2d 194, cert denied 480 US 948). As the court instructed the jury, the allocution was received solely to establish this accomplice’s own participation in the crime, a matter placed in issue by defendant. Nothing in the allocution was contrived as a device to implicate defendant, and the plea court’s use, in establishing the factual basis of the accomplice’s plea, of the statutory language that a “participant” caused the death of the victim did not, in context, imply that defendant was such participant (compare, People v Blades, 93 NY2d 166, 174-175). The accomplice’s admission of his own participation was clearly against his penal interest, and the fact that the accomplice had entered into a cooperation agreement, ultimately unfulfilled, did not render his plea allocution any less reliable, as proof of his own guilt, than any other allocution made in connection with a favorable plea bargain (compare, People v Thomas, supra, at 198-199, with People v Blades, supra, at 175-176). The allocution’s reliability was not undermined by the accomplice’s pro se motion to take back his guilty plea, since the accomplice had withdrawn that motion prior to the receipt of his plea allocution in evidence at defendant’s trial, and since there is no indication that the motion had any merit. Furthermore, the plea allocution was thoroughly corroborated by other evidence admitted at defendant’s trial, including the testimony of another accomplice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 122, 717 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-poole-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack