People v. Cruz
| Decision Date | 17 September 1987 |
| Citation | 514 N.E.2d 379,70 N.Y.2d 733,519 N.Y.S.2d 959 |
| Parties | , 514 N.E.2d 379 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eulogio CRUZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Upon reargument, following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162), the order of the Appellate Division 104 A.D.2d 1060, 481 N.Y.S.2d 934 should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
The Supreme Court having determined that the videotaped statement of codefendant Benjamin Cruz was improperly received in his joint trial with defendant Eulogio Cruz, remitted the matter to this court for further proceedings. We now determine that reception of the evidence was not harmless.
Insofar as the People now contend that the statement was admissible as a declaration against penal interest by Benjamin Cruz, probative of defendant's guilt, it is sufficient to note that the statement was not offered at trial for that purpose and defendant has had no opportunity to challenge its reliability (see, People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9, 517 N.Y.S.2d 120, 509 N.E.2d 1226).
ALEXANDER, J., taking no part.
Upon reargument, following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quartararo v. Fogg
...a matter of law" and it, therefore, did not qualify as a declaration against penal interest. Subsequently, in People v. Cruz, 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379 (1987), it held that, where a statement is not offered or admitted as a declaration against penal interest, the Peopl......
-
People v. Di Nicolantonio
...14th Amend.), was violated in this case (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162, on remand, 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476). The critical issue then is whether this violation ......
-
People v. MacCary
...N.Y.S.2d 14, 485 N.E.2d 221, revd on other grounds and remanded 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379; People v. Compitiello, 118 A.D.2d 720, 500 N.Y.S.2d 52; see also, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183-184, 544 N.Y.S.......
-
People v. Brister
...his rights under the Confrontation Clause (Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162, on remand, 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476). We note initially that contrary to the People's asser......