People v. Rosario
| Decision Date | 25 June 1979 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William ROSARIO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Freda S. Nisnewitz, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Timothy G. O'Connor, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and LAZER, COHALAN and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 4, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered.
At the joint trial of appellant and his codefendant, Rafael Cruz, the latter's confession implicating appellant was admitted into evidence unredacted. Neither defendant testified at trial. Cruz, however, testified at a Huntley hearing at which he denied ever having made the confession. Accordingly, appellant's attorney declined to cross-examine Cruz at the hearing.
As a general rule, the so-called Bruton rule (Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476), prohibiting the admission of an unredacted confession of a nontestifying codefendant, does not apply if the codefendant testified at a Huntley hearing, wherein the defendant was afforded the right of confrontation (People v. Stanbridge, 26 N.Y.2d 1, 307 N.Y.S.2d 876, 256 N.E.2d 185, cert. den. 398 U.S. 911, 90 S.Ct. 1707, 26 L.Ed.2d 71). However, the Bruton problem subsists where the codefendant testified at the hearing that he did not make a confession (People v. Oldring, 42 A.D.2d 737, 346 N.Y.S.2d 14). Under these circumstances, there was no reason for appellant's defense counsel to cross-examine Cruz at the hearing. Appellant was deprived of his right of meaningful confrontation and a new trial is therefore required.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosario v. Kuhlman
...admitted Cruz's confession into evidence against petitioner at the joint trial. A new trial was ordered. People v. Rosario (2nd Dept.1979) 70 A.D.2d 956, 417 N.Y.S.2d 767, aff'd (1980) 51 N.Y.2d 889, 434 N.Y.S.2d 973, 415 N.E.2d 962. The Appellate Division also reversed Cruz's conviction. I......
-
Rosario v. Kuhlman
...Division, Second Department, reversed Rosario's conviction on Bruton grounds 1 and ordered a new trial. People v. Rosario, 70 A.D.2d 956, 417 N.Y.S.2d 767 (2d Dep't 1979), aff'd, 51 N.Y.2d 889, 434 N.Y.S.2d 973, 415 N.E.2d 962 (1980). The basis for the reversal was that the state had introd......
-
People v. Rosario
...S. Nisnewitz, Brooklyn, for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 70 A.D.2d 956, 417 N.Y.S.2d 767. One Rafael Cruz and defendant were indicted together. At a pretrial hearing on Cruz motion to suppress an inculpatory statement a......
-
People v. Rosario
...v. William ROSARIO, Respondent. Court of Appeals of New York. March 20, 1980. Motion to dismiss the appeal herein denied. 70 A.D.2d 956, 417 N.Y.S.2d 767. ...