People v. Shannonhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shannonhouse

52 A.D.2d 725, 382 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12418

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

DecidedApril 9, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 725 (People v. Shannonhouse) 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. Shannonhouse, 52 A.D.2d 725, 382 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although it was error for the prosecution to elicit testimony of an alleged confederate of the defendant as to his prior out-of-court identification of the defendant from a photograph (People v Griffin, 29 NY2d 91, 93), the error was harmless, and so not cause for reversal (People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18, 21-22; People v Quigley, 30 NY2d 738). Identification of the defendant was not essential to connect him with the robberies, since both he and the People agree that the case rests solely upon the validity of his confession, and the court so charged. The voluntariness of the confession was clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court convicting defendant of robbery, first degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although it was error for the prosecution to elicit testimony of an alleged confederate of the defendant as to his prior out-of-court identification of the defendant from a photograph (People v Griffin, 29 NY2d 91, 93), the error was harmless, and so not cause for reversal (People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18, 21-22; People v Quigley, 30 NY2d 738). Identification of the defendant was not essential to connect him with the robberies, since both he and the People agree that the case rests solely upon the validity of his confession, and the court so charged. The voluntariness of the confession was clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court convicting defendant of robbery, first degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 725, 382 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shannonhouse-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack