People v. Romero

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Romero

51 N.E.3d 554, 27 N.Y.3d 981

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 28, 2016

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 51 N.E.3d 554 (People v. Romero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Romero, 51 N.E.3d 554, 27 N.Y.3d 981 (N.Y. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s pre-Miranda statement, while in custody, in response to a detective’s question regarding whether he would like to make a statement should have been suppressed. However, the error in failing to suppress the statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant and there being no reasonable possibility that his statement contributed to the verdict (see People v Rivera, 57 NY2d 453, 456 [1982]). Additionally, there is record support for Supreme Court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress the showup identification (see People v Clark, 85 NY2d 886 [1995]), and that decision is beyond our further review.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s pre-Miranda statement, while in custody, in response to a detective’s question regarding whether he would like to make a statement should have been suppressed. However, the error in failing to suppress the statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant and there being no reasonable possibility that his statement contributed to the verdict (see People v Rivera, 57 NY2d 453, 456 [1982]). Additionally, there is record support for Supreme Court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress the showup identification (see People v Clark, 85 NY2d 886 [1995]), and that decision is beyond our further review.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.E.3d 554, 27 N.Y.3d 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romero-ny-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack