People v. Russell
| Decision Date | 31 May 1988 |
| Citation | 71 N.Y.2d 1016,525 N.E.2d 747,530 N.Y.S.2d 101 |
| Parties | , 525 N.E.2d 747 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William RUSSELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 127 A.D.2d 805, 512 N.Y.S.2d 5, should be affirmed.
Appellant and a codefendant, Floyd Bailey, were each charged with two counts of rape, sodomy and unlawful imprisonment of a 14-year-old female. Originally, codefendant Bailey and another man, Darryl Schermerhorn, were arrested in connection with the crimes. Bailey confessed, implicating himself and appellant Russell, at which point Schermerhorn was released and Russell was arrested.
A joint jury trial was held and Bailey's redacted confession, which referred to himself and "another person", was introduced without objection. Defendant was convicted on all counts. The Appellate Division modified by reversing defendant's conviction for unlawful imprisonment and dismissing that count of the indictment (127 A.D.2d 805, 512 N.Y.S.2d 5).
Appellant now challenges the conviction on the rape and sodomy counts by maintaining that because Bailey's redacted confession was admitted at trial, the denial of his motion to sever is reversible error. The purposes and requirements of the preservation rules are not satisfied by intertwining and piggy-backing distinct procedural steps of the criminal proceeding, as for example severance motions and evidentiary submissions. Defendant failed, therefore, to preserve the claim with respect to the admission of the codefendant's redacted statements because no objection whatsoever was made as to that at the appropriate time, that is, when it was offered into evidence.
To be sure, a pretrial motion to sever the trials of the respective defendants was made by appellant's counsel. But this was before the admissibility of the codefendant's statement had even been determined. The trial court denied that motion expressly as "premature" and "without prejudice to renew". On the eve of the trial, after the codefendant's statement was found to be admissible in a Huntley hearing, appellant's counsel sought a "verification" that the court would not grant a severance of trial. The Trial Judge verified that and added that the codefendant's statement would be redacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Finch
...not satisfied by intertwining and piggy-backing distinct procedural steps of the criminal proceeding” (People v. Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 1017, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101, 525 N.E.2d 747 [1988] ).Here, defendant did not preserve his claim that, because there was no evidence that Bradley's lease allow......
-
People v. Udzinski
...affected fundamental rights (see, e.g., People v. Fernandez, 72 N.Y.2d 827, 530 N.Y.S.2d 547, 526 N.E.2d 38; People v. Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101, 525 N.E.2d 747; People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616 [right to confront adverse witnesses]; People ......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...371; People v. Santiago, 99 A.D.2d 819, 472 N.Y.S.2d 153; People v. Russell, 127 A.D.2d 805, 512 N.Y.S.2d 5, affd. 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101, 525 N.E.2d 747; People v. Bailey, 133 A.D.2d 462, 519 N.Y.S.2d 676; People v. Barfield, 138 A.D.2d 497, 525 N.Y.S.2d 892; People v. Major, 142......
-
People v. Finch
...not satisfied by intertwining and piggy-backing distinct procedural steps of the criminal proceeding” (People v. Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 1017, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101, 525 N.E.2d 747 [1988] ). Here, defendant did not preserve his claim that, because there was no evidence that Bradley's lease allo......
-
Table of cases
...165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1991), aff’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992), §§ 15:150, 16:10 People v. Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1988), §§ 1:140, 1:170 People v. Rutter, 202 A.D.2d 123, 616 N.Y.S.2d 598 (1st Dept. 1994), § 9:80 People v. Ryan, 121 A.D.2......
-
Objections & related procedures
...you must object as soon as opposing counsel introduces or seeks to introduce improper or objectionable evidence. See People v. Russell , 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1988) (objection to admission of co-defendant’s redacted statement should have been made at time of actual admission). C......
-
Objections & related procedures
...you must object as soon as opposing counsel introduces or seeks to introduce improper or objectionable evidence. See People v. Russell , 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1988) (objection to admission of co-defendant’s redacted statement should have been made at time of actual admission); s......
-
Objections & related procedures
...you must object as soon as opposing counsel introduces or seeks to introduce improper or objectionable evidence. See People v. Russell , 71 N.Y.2d 1016, 530 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1988) (objection to admission of co-defendant’s redacted statement should have been made at time of actual admission); s......