People v. Respeto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Respeto

63 A.D.2d 660, 404 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537

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

DecidedMay 1, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 660 (People v. Respeto) 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. Respeto, 63 A.D.2d 660, 404 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 17, 1975, convicting him of murder and manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress a confession. Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, and new trial ordered. Defendant’s postindictment statement made on the eve of his arraignment and prior to the procurement of counsel should have been suppressed (see People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479; People v Davis, 55 AD2d 960; People v Pannone, 59 AD2d 725). The lack of specific corroboration of the robbery, or attempted robbery, to which defendant confessed and which ultimately resulted in the death of the victim and constituted the felony underlying the murder charge, does not constitute a bar to conviction upon such count (see People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 17, 1975, convicting him of murder and manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress a confession. Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, and new trial ordered. Defendant’s postindictment statement made on the eve of his arraignment and prior to the procurement of counsel should have been suppressed (see People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479; People v Davis, 55 AD2d 960; People v Pannone, 59 AD2d 725). The lack of specific corroboration of the robbery, or attempted robbery, to which defendant confessed and which ultimately resulted in the death of the victim and constituted the felony underlying the murder charge, does not constitute a bar to conviction upon such count (see People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 660, 404 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-respeto-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack