People v. DeRennzio
| Decision Date | 31 March 1966 |
| Citation | 268 N.Y.S.2d 542,25 A.D.2d 652 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George DeRENNZIO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
W. E. Dillon, New York City, for respondent.
W. M. Weitzman, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before RABIN, J.P., and STEVENS, EAGER, STEUER and BASTOW, JJ.
Judgment convicting defendant of the crime of murder, first degree, unanimously affirmed. We discuss briefly one issue raised by appellant. He and others entered a pawn shop during business hours and attempted a robbery. Upon the arrival of police officers appellant and the others fled but in the course thereof an officer was shot and killed. Defendant made several exculpatory statements but on the same day an indictment was returned an inculpatory statement was made. While some minor objections were made to certain questions and answers on the ground of irrelevancy no objection was made to the receipt in evidence of the statement. This may well have been no oversight as defense counsel in his summation made forceful use thereof to support the principal, if not only, defense--(1) that the robbery had been effectively abandoned so that there could be no finding of a felony murder and (2) that the fatal shot was not fired by appellant. The admission in evidence, over objection, of a post-indictment statement is reversible error (People v. Di Biasi, 7 N.Y.2d 544, 200 N.Y.S.2d 21, 166 N.E.2d 825) but here in the absence of such objection 'no question of law has been preserved for our review' (People v. Friola, 11 N.Y.2d 157, 159, 227 N.Y.S.2d 423, 182 N.Ed.2d 100, 101). We recognize our right to reverse in the interests of justice (People v. Kelly, 12 N.Y.2d 248, 238 N.Y.S.2d 934, 189 N.E.2d 477), but we find nothing in this record that moves us towards such a conclusion. Lastly, there having been no objections to the receipt of the several statements, the trial court not having charged on the issue of voluntariness and there having been no exception thereto or request so to charge there is no necessity for a non-jury hearing on this issue. (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. De Renzzio
...The appeal was heard in 1966 at the Appellate Division and the judgment of conviction affirmed on a carefully reasoned opinion (25 A.D.2d 652, 268 N.Y.S.2d 542). Almost a quarter of a century after the trial of the present case this court in 1960 announced a rule of law that a statement tak......
-
People v. Bryant
...not preclude us from reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial in the interests of justice. (C.P.L. § 470.15; People v. DeRenzzio, 25 A.D.2d 652, 268 N.Y.S.2d 542, aff'd 19 N.Y.2d 45, 277 N.Y.S.2d 668, 224 N.E.2d Although we believe the foregoing is sufficient to require a reversal ......
- Flesher v. Goldberg