People v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 29 March 1984 |
| Citation | 61 N.Y.2d 1022,463 N.E.2d 1228,475 N.Y.S.2d 376 |
| Parties | , 463 N.E.2d 1228 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Edwin SANCHEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 92 A.D.2d 595, 459 N.Y.S.2d 488, should be affirmed.
Accused of the strangulation killing of his former girlfriend's grandmother, respondent admitted to prosecutorial officials that he was present at the victim's apartment on the night of the murder. Respondent said that he hit the victim twice after she made offensive personal remarks to him. Though his memory of subsequent events was sketchy, respondent did recall leaving the apartment, with the door open, and observing a teen-aged male whom he had seen in the hall earlier.
At trial, the prosecution relied on respondent's statements as well as other evidence, concededly circumstantial. The trial court denied respondent's request for a "total circumstantial charge," stating both that respondent's statements "take it out of an entire circumstantial case" and that "it is up to the jury how to define the statement." The court instructed the jury that the People were relying on direct as well as circumstantial evidence. While the court did address the reasoning process to be employed in weighing circumstantial evidence, it did not charge the jury to review the prosecution's entire case against the rigorous standard applicable when it relies on circumstantial evidence alone.
Respondent's statements constituted circumstantial, not direct, evidence of guilt. Since the case was submitted to the jury on the theory that the cause of death was strangulation by a telephone wire, the key issue for the jury's determination was the identity of the strangler. Respondent's statements may have proved his presence at the scene of the crime close in time to its commission, but the fact of his presence did not establish that he was the strangler. While it may at times be appropriate to leave to the jury the question whether an admission is direct or circumstantial evidence (cf. People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 383 N.E.2d 108), such deference is inappropriate where, as here, the admission cannot be interpreted to establish the act charged. Thus, the evidence against respondent was entirely circumstantial and the trial court erred in refusing to so instruct the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grey v. Henderson
...evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as was suggested in People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 475 N.Y.S.2d 376, 463 N.E.2d 1228 (1984), the trial court did "in substance," (Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d at 1022, 475 N.Y.S.2d at 377, 463 N.E.2d at 1229) ch......
-
Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
...issue to be determined by the jury, such statements are properly considered circumstantial evidence. People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1023, 475 N.Y.S.2d 376, 377, 463 N.E.2d 1228 (1984). Here, as in Sanchez, the Petitioner's statements "cannot be interpreted to establish the act charged."......
-
People v. Taylor
...of innocence’ " ( People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458 [1985], quoting People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024, 475 N.Y.S.2d 376, 463 N.E.2d 1228 [1984] ; accord People v. James, 147 A.D.3d at 1214, 48 N.Y.S.3d 524 ; compare People v. Wlasiuk, 136 A.D.3d 1101......
-
People v. Harris
...innocence’ ” ( People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458 [1985] [emphasis added], quoting People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024, 475 N.Y.S.2d 376, 463 N.E.2d 1228 [1984] ). In contrast, although close judicial supervision may be necessary in circumstantial evide......