People v. Rosa
| Decision Date | 19 February 1981 |
| Citation | 80 A.D.2d 527,436 N.Y.S.2d 9 |
| Parties | , 81 A.D.2d 766 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nicholas ROSA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. D. Jacob, New York City, for respondent.
O. G. Suarez, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, SILVERMAN and LYNCH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered May 17, 1977, convicting defendant, following the denial of his Huntley motion, and after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of twenty years to life, reversed on the law and the facts, the motion to suppress granted, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Following his arrest in Kings County on an unrelated charge, defendant was brought to New York County for questioning in this matter. His statement, admitted at the trial, was the only evidence placing him at the scene of this homicide. At his Huntley hearing, defendant had raised the Sixth Amendment claim that at the time of his questioning he was being represented by an attorney in the Kings County matter then pending. It does not appear that this claim was or can be controverted. Defendant's statement must be suppressed (People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709; as to the retroactivity of Rogers, see People v. Bell, 50 N.Y.2d 869, 430 N.Y.S.2d 43, 407 N.E.2d 1340 and People v. Benitez, 76 A.D.2d 196, 430 N.Y.S. 287).
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. West
...the right to counsel had attached there and defendant's derivative right to counsel attached in the Manhattan investigation also (80 A.D.2d 527, 436 N.Y.S.2d 9). Shortly thereafter we decided People v. Kazmarick (supra), which discredited the Appellate Division's rationale, and accordingly ......
-
People v. Rosa
...by counsel on the unrelated case at the time of questioning "was or can be controverted" suppression was required (People v. Rosa, 80 A.D.2d 527, 528, 436 N.Y.S.2d 9). Following our decision in People v. Kazmarick, 52 N.Y.2d 322, 438 N.Y.S.2d 247, 420 N.E.2d 45, the People sought reargument......
-
People v. Rosa
...suppress is granted, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Previous decisions of this Court in this case; see 81 A.D.2d 766, 436 N.Y.S.2d 9; 80 A.D.2d 527, 436 N.Y.S.2d 9. In our decision at 81 A.D.2d 766, 436 N.Y.S.2d 9 we remanded the matter for a reopened Huntley hearing directed to t......