People v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 05 December 1994 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Fred Baum, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Joyce Adolfsen, and Annette G. Hasapidis-Marshall, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and O'BRIEN, HART and FRIEDMANN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered November 7, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree (six counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront a codefendant who did not testify is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, this contention is without merit. At trial, the defendant claimed that his confession was the product of physical and mental coercion and that he had been told to use the statement of the codefendant Roger Andreu as the source of information for the defendant's confession. To rebut the defendant's assertion, the prosecution sought to introduce the codefendant's statement not for its truth, but to show that the defendant's confession was even more detailed than the codefendant's statement and that the latter statement could not have been the source of the defendant's confession. In granting the prosecution's request, the court twice delivered instructions to the jury that the codefendant's statement was admissible only as evidence concerning the source of the defendant's confession, and not for the truth of the matters asserted. Furthermore, unlike the situation in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, redaction of the defendant's name from the codefendant's statement would have detracted from the purpose for which it was introduced into evidence by creating artificial differences between the two statements and by making it more difficult for the jury to evaluate the defendant's testimony that his confession was derived from the codefendant's statement. Accordingly, the Confrontation Clause was not violated, and the admission of the codefendant's statement was proper (see, Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 85 L.Ed.2d 425).
The defendant contends that his conviction should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Caldwell
...partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Jenkins, 93 A.D.3d 861, 940 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 266, 620 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; People v. Halstead, 180 A.D.2d 818, 580 N.Y.S.2d 413 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. Bruton does not ......
- People v. Rodriguez
-
People v. Jackson
...evidence that was lost while in police custody (see, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 266, 620 N.Y.S.2d 68). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's remaini......
-
People v. Jones
...76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471; People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 266, 620 N.Y.S.2d 68; People v. Kelly, 194 A.D.2d 693, 599 N.Y.S.2d 116; CPL 240.20[1]; 240.70[1] The defendant's remaining contentions are unpr......