People v. Tinsley

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tinsley

292 N.E.2d 783, 31 N.Y.2d 905, 340 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 881

DecidedDecember 29, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 292 N.E.2d 783 (People v. Tinsley) 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. Tinsley, 292 N.E.2d 783, 31 N.Y.2d 905, 340 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 881 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum. The appellant’s right of confrontation was repeatedly violated by the use of his codefendant’s ineffectually redacted confession (Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123); and upon this record it could not be found that, the victim’s testimony as to identification under somewhat difficult circumstances— this being the only other evidence linking appellant to the crime —“was só overwhelming that the Bruton error.must be characterized as harmless ” (People v. Baker, 26 N Y 2d 169,174) and that there was no “ reasonable possibility that the evidence complained bf might have contributed to the conviction ” (Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 86-87).

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the judgment of conviction vacated and a new trial ordered.

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

Memorandum. The appellant’s right of confrontation was repeatedly violated by the use of his codefendant’s ineffectually redacted confession (Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123); and upon this record it could not be found that, the victim’s testimony as to identification under somewhat difficult circumstances— this being the only other evidence linking appellant to the crime —“was só overwhelming that the Bruton error.must be characterized as harmless ” (People v. Baker, 26 N Y 2d 169,174) and that there was no “ reasonable possibility that the evidence complained bf might have contributed to the conviction ” (Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 86-87).

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the judgment of conviction vacated and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 N.E.2d 783, 31 N.Y.2d 905, 340 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tinsley-ny-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack