People v. Weatherspoon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weatherspoon

155 A.D.2d 888, 547 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14720

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 888 (People v. Weatherspoon) 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. Weatherspoon, 155 A.D.2d 888, 547 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminally negligence homicide for the stabbing death of his brother, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of his refusal to talk to the police immediately after his arrest. The People concede that such evidence was improperly admitted (see, Wainwright v Greenfield, 474 US 284). However, in light of the testimony concerning defendant’s subsequent statement to the police and testimony concerning his statement to the 911 operator that he had stabbed the victim, we find that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf., People v Von Werne, 41 NY2d 584, 588).

Although the court inappropriately referred to "evenly balanced” evidence in its instructions on the burden of proof (see, People v Jackson, 124 AD2d 975, 976, lv denied 69 NY2d 746), the reference was isolated and was followed by a complete instruction on reasonable doubt (see, People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554, 555). The charge, when read as a whole, conveyed the correct rule of law (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832; People v Hartle, 151 AD2d 1003; People v Wynn, 108 AD2d 768, 769).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and [889]*889find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — criminally negligent homicide.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminally negligence homicide for the stabbing death of his brother, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of his refusal to talk to the police immediately after his arrest. The People concede that such evidence was improperly admitted (see, Wainwright v Greenfield, 474 US 284). However, in light of the testimony concerning defendant’s subsequent statement to the police and testimony concerning his statement to the 911 operator that he had stabbed the victim, we find that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf., People v Von Werne, 41 NY2d 584, 588).

Although the court inappropriately referred to "evenly balanced” evidence in its instructions on the burden of proof (see, People v Jackson, 124 AD2d 975, 976, lv denied 69 NY2d 746), the reference was isolated and was followed by a complete instruction on reasonable doubt (see, People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554, 555). The charge, when read as a whole, conveyed the correct rule of law (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832; People v Hartle, 151 AD2d 1003; People v Wynn, 108 AD2d 768, 769).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and [889]*889find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — criminally negligent homicide.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 888, 547 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weatherspoon-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack