People v. Woodhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodhouse

51 A.D.3d 952, 856 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 952 (People v. Woodhouse) 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. Woodhouse, 51 A.D.3d 952, 856 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered December 4, 2002, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for the review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement to law enforcement officials. Even if the hearing court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s videotaped statement, under the circumstances of this case, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Wood, 40 AD3d 663, 664 [2007]; People v Sacha, 177 AD2d 523 [1991]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Mastro, J.P, Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered December 4, 2002, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for the review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement to law enforcement officials. Even if the hearing court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s videotaped statement, under the circumstances of this case, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Wood, 40 AD3d 663, 664 [2007]; People v Sacha, 177 AD2d 523 [1991]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Mastro, J.P, Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 952, 856 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodhouse-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack