People v. Utter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Utter

76 A.D.2d 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135

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

DecidedJune 26, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. Utter) 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. Utter, 76 A.D.2d 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered May 21, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant [1014]*1014of the crime of murder in the second degree. In an indictment defendant was charged with the crime of murder in the second degree in violation of subdivision 2 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law based on allegations that he caused the death of a two- and one-half-year-old baby by means of beating the baby with his hands and with a stick. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of said crime and sentence was imposed. This appeal ensued. It appears from the record that an accusatory instrument was filed and as a result thereof a warrant of arrest was issued directing the arrest of defendant. Defendant was thereafter arrested and given his Miranda warnings. He was then questioned in the absence of counsel and made a full confession. A pretrial motion was made by defendant to suppress the confession. The court denied the motion, concluding that defendant was given his Miranda warnings, that he understood his rights and that he voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights in making the oral and written admissions. Defendant contends that the confession should have been suppressed due to the fact that it was obtained in the absence of counsel after an accusatory instrument was filed and that he could not waive his right to counsel in the absence of counsel. The Court of Appeals has recently addressed this precise issue and concluded that once a felony complaint is filed a defendant may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of counsel (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218). Consequently, defendant’s confession was improperly admitted into evidence at trial and should have been suppressed. The trial court’s failure to suppress defendant’s confession may not, in the present case, be characterized a harmless error. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed and a new trial granted. Having so concluded, we need not now consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted. Sweeney, J. P., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result in a separate memorandum; Staley, Jr., J., dissents and votes to affirm in a memorandum.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered May 21, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant [1014]*1014of the crime of murder in the second degree. In an indictment defendant was charged with the crime of murder in the second degree in violation of subdivision 2 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law based on allegations that he caused the death of a two- and one-half-year-old baby by means of beating the baby with his hands and with a stick. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of said crime and sentence was imposed. This appeal ensued. It appears from the record that an accusatory instrument was filed and as a result thereof a warrant of arrest was issued directing the arrest of defendant. Defendant was thereafter arrested and given his Miranda warnings. He was then questioned in the absence of counsel and made a full confession. A pretrial motion was made by defendant to suppress the confession. The court denied the motion, concluding that defendant was given his Miranda warnings, that he understood his rights and that he voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights in making the oral and written admissions. Defendant contends that the confession should have been suppressed due to the fact that it was obtained in the absence of counsel after an accusatory instrument was filed and that he could not waive his right to counsel in the absence of counsel. The Court of Appeals has recently addressed this precise issue and concluded that once a felony complaint is filed a defendant may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of counsel (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218). Consequently, defendant’s confession was improperly admitted into evidence at trial and should have been suppressed. The trial court’s failure to suppress defendant’s confession may not, in the present case, be characterized a harmless error. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed and a new trial granted. Having so concluded, we need not now consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted. Sweeney, J. P., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result in a separate memorandum; Staley, Jr., J., dissents and votes to affirm in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-utter-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack