People v. Rumble

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Rumble

383 N.E.2d 108, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by75 cases

This text of 383 N.E.2d 108 (People v. Rumble) 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. Rumble, 383 N.E.2d 108, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant’s statement to his brother that "I’m not responsible for what I did”, if interpreted by the fact finder as a relevant admission of guilt, distinguishes this case from those based exclusively on circumstantial evidence (e.g., People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, [881]*88132). Hence, the rigorous standards which obtain in circumstantial cases are not applicable.

The memorandum at the Appellate Division contains several unfortunate references to the lack of explanation for the cause of decedent’s catching fire. In context, however, it is evident that that court was not suggesting that defendant had an obligation to explain, through his own testimony or otherwise, the events leading up to the fire. Instead, the court was indicating that, in the absence of countervailing evidence, defendant’s admission, combined with the circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as indeed it was. This is true despite discomfort arising from absence of evidence of motive and the strange circumstance that the grandfather and defendant, in struggling over the hose valve, according to the grandfather, exchanged no words.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

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.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant’s statement to his brother that "I’m not responsible for what I did”, if interpreted by the fact finder as a relevant admission of guilt, distinguishes this case from those based exclusively on circumstantial evidence (e.g., People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, [881]*88132). Hence, the rigorous standards which obtain in circumstantial cases are not applicable.

The memorandum at the Appellate Division contains several unfortunate references to the lack of explanation for the cause of decedent’s catching fire. In context, however, it is evident that that court was not suggesting that defendant had an obligation to explain, through his own testimony or otherwise, the events leading up to the fire. Instead, the court was indicating that, in the absence of countervailing evidence, defendant’s admission, combined with the circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as indeed it was. This is true despite discomfort arising from absence of evidence of motive and the strange circumstance that the grandfather and defendant, in struggling over the hose valve, according to the grandfather, exchanged no words.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.E.2d 108, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rumble-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack