People v. Williford

New York Supreme Court

People v. Williford

63 Misc. 2d 408, 311 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1556

DecidedJune 5, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Misc. 2d 408 (People v. Williford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Williford, 63 Misc. 2d 408, 311 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1556 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon this record we perceive neither the occasion nor the opportunity to give defendant the Miranda [384 U. S. 436] warnings. When the police officer arrived at the scene and inquired ‘1 Wh.at happened ? ’ ’, without directing his question to anyone in particular, defendant blurted out ‘1 They caught me”. In this setting, the admission of the testimony of the officer as to defendant’s statement did not violate the Miranda rule. In any event, in view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, any error in this respect may be disregarded as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Thornton, 32 A D 2d 830; People v. McNair, 32 A D 2d 662; People v. Parler, 30 A D 2d 681.)

Although we are not unmindful of defendant’s prior criminal record, we are of the opinion that a one-year jail sentence for the theft of a bottle of cologne valued at $3.50 was excessive under the circumstances.

The judgment of conviction should be unanimously modified on the facts by reducing the sentence to the time already served and, as so modified, affirmed.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon this record we perceive neither the occasion nor the opportunity to give defendant the Miranda [384 U. S. 436] warnings. When the police officer arrived at the scene and inquired ‘1 Wh.at happened ? ’ ’, without directing his question to anyone in particular, defendant blurted out ‘1 They caught me”. In this setting, the admission of the testimony of the officer as to defendant’s statement did not violate the Miranda rule. In any event, in view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, any error in this respect may be disregarded as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Thornton, 32 A D 2d 830; People v. McNair, 32 A D 2d 662; People v. Parler, 30 A D 2d 681.)

Although we are not unmindful of defendant’s prior criminal record, we are of the opinion that a one-year jail sentence for the theft of a bottle of cologne valued at $3.50 was excessive under the circumstances.

The judgment of conviction should be unanimously modified on the facts by reducing the sentence to the time already served and, as so modified, affirmed.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Misc. 2d 408, 311 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williford-nysupct-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack