People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 08 March 1991
• Citation: 171 A.D.2d 1038,569 N.Y.S.2d 526
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lundie K. BROWN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 526

569 N.Y.S.2d 526

171 A.D.2d 1038

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lundie K. BROWN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

March 8, 1991.

Louis Pilato, Rochester, for appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Wendy Lehmann, Rochester, for respondent.

Before DOERR, J.P., and GREEN, PINE, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant contends that the People's proof was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction of felony murder because it failed to establish that his conduct caused the death of Karin Strand. He asserts that the victim's death was the result of the hospital's malpractice, rather than the knife wounds she received during his assault. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that a rational jury could have found that defendant's assault was a contributing cause of the fatality (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 280-281, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447; People v. Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407, 412-413, 362 N.Y.S.2d 848, 321 N.E.2d 773; People v. Kane, 213 N.Y. 260, 270, 107 N.E. 655).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of three witnesses. He alleges that their testimony was the fruit of his confession obtained in violation of the rule set forth in (People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 440 N.Y.S.2d 894, 423 N.E.2d 371. Between the date of defendant's conviction and this appeal, the Court of Appeals in People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011) overruled People v. Bartolomeo (supra) and its progeny. Because defendant's contention must be reviewed pursuant to the present state of the law (see, People ex rel. Julio v. Walters, 88 A.D.2d 259, 452 N.Y.S.2d 888, appeal dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 881, 460 N.Y.S.2d 529, 447 N.E.2d 77), the alleged violation of the Bartolomeo rule does not provide a basis for the suppression of the witnesses' testimony. In any event, even if the confession was illegally obtained under the Bartolomeo rule, the court properly denied suppression because the testimony was not obtained from the exploitation of the confession and was given voluntarily (see, People v. Barksdale, 133 A.D.2d 770, 520 N.Y.S.2d 58, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 1003, 526 N.Y.S.2d 938, 521 N.E.2d 1081; see also, People v. Graham, 39 N.Y.2d 775, 385 N.Y.S.2d 31, 350 N.E.2d 408; People v. La Rocca, 37 N.Y.2d 927, 379 N.Y.S.2d 839, 342 N.E.2d 601; People v. Mendez, 28 N.Y.2d 94, ...