People v. Eastman
| Decision Date | 28 October 1985 |
| Citation | 114 A.D.2d 509,494 N.Y.S.2d 418 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Cecilio EASTMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
London and Lopez, Brooklyn (Julia Pamela Heit, New York City, and Frank A. Lopez, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Cecilio Eastman, pro se.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Peter A. Weinstein and Evan Wolfson, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BRACKEN, NIEHOFF and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), rendered June 10, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress certain statements.
Judgment affirmed.
We have reviewed the record of the Huntley hearing and conclude that the evidence supports the suppression court's determination that defendant's confession was voluntarily made (see, People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561, 479 N.Y.S.2d 267, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 759, 485 N.Y.S.2d 1045, 475 N.E.2d 462; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726, 469 N.Y.S.2d 137). Although defendant, who had been shot and wounded during the crime, had undergone surgery earlier in the day, he was nevertheless coherent, alert and fully aware of what he was doing when, at his request, and with the approval of hospital personnel, he spoke to a detective and a prosecutor in his hospital room and, upon receiving his Miranda warnings and waiving his rights, made a detailed confession to the crime (see, People v. Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588, 483 N.Y.S.2d 93).
In addition, defendant's motion to sever his case from that of his codefendant was properly denied, inasmuch as defendant's own confession was more detailed and inculpatory than that of his codefendant, and the latter added nothing to the former. Thus, the probability of prejudice accruing to defendant was negligible (see, People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 425, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155).
Finally, the trial court properly permitted a police officer to testify as to a statement made by the dying victim, as he lay on the street minutes after having been shot, to the effect that he had been robbed and that he might have shot one of his assailants. The circumstances surrounding the victim's declaration reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Eastman
...to suppress certain statements following the Huntley hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment (see, People v. Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509, 494 N.Y.S.2d 418), and this Court denied defendant's application for leave (see, People v. Eastman, 67 N.Y.2d 651, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1046, 490 N.E.2......
-
People v. Lashley
...People v. Vigilante, 122 A.D.2d 900, 505 N.Y.S.2d 942, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 1005, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 503 N.E.2d 135; People v. Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509, 494 N.Y.S.2d 418, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 651, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1046, 490 N.E.2d 563; see also, People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 135-137, 501 N.Y.......
-
People v. McFadyen
...476 U.S. 1168, 106 S.Ct. 2888, 90 L.Ed.2d 976; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155; People v. Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509, 494 N.Y.S.2d 418). The only difference between the two statements was the codefendant's admission that he had actually committed the crimes.......
-
People v. Ceruti
...police officials were voluntarily made (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318; People v. Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509, 494 N.Y.S.2d 418; People v. Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588, 483 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his sup......