People v. Sprinkler
| Decision Date | 30 April 1962 |
| Citation | 227 N.Y.S.2d 818,16 A.D.2d 705 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore SPRINKLER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E. Roger Frisch, New York City, for appellant.
Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, for respondent; Wm. I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered April 14, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve a term of fifteen to thirty years.
Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury's verdict have not been considered.
There is no merit to defendant's claim that the admission into evidence of statements made by his codefendant after the latter's arrest unduly prejudiced his (defendant's) substantial rights or prevented him from having a fair trial. While as to him such evidence was inadmissible, it was admissible and binding upon the declarant. Upon receipt of such evidence, the trial court properly admonished the jury that the codefendant's statement was not admissible against defendant and was binding only upon the maker thereof; and subsequently in its charge to the jury the trial court repeated such admonition (People v. Johnson, 15 A.D.2d 961 [2d Dept.], decided March 26, 1962).
However, in our opinion, it was error for the court to proceed with the trial after it had assigned as counsel for defendant the retained attorney for the codefendant, since the codefendant's interests were in direct conflict with the interests of the defendant (People v. Fritz, 279 App.Div. 1020, 111 N.Y.S.2d 734). This diversity of interest became evident as soon as testimony was introduced showing that in prior statements made by the defendant and codefendant to the arresting officer, each defendant has accused the other of the robbery while exculpating himself. When such testimony was introduced defendant's attorney failed to register any objection; he failed to cross-examine the officer as to the prior statements made by the defendant--statements which exculpated the defendant and incriminated his codefendant; and he (the attorney) failed to move for a separate trial or for a mistrial.
Under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cesare
...are in conflict, are represented by the same assigned counsel (People v. Powell, 21 A.D.2d 789, 250 N.Y.S.2d 592; People v. Sprinkler, 16 A.D.2d 705, 227 N.Y.S.2d 818), absent a conflict of interest which interferes with the proper presentation of the defense of one or more of the codefenda......
-
People v. De Leon
...are in conflict, are represented by the same assigned counsel (People v. Powell, 21 A.D.2d 789, 250 N.Y.S.2d 592; People v. Sprinkler, 16 A.D.2d 705, 227 N.Y.S.2d 818), absent a conflict of interest which interferes with the proper presentation of the defense of one or more of the codefenda......
-
People v. Walker
...(People v. Byrne, 17 N.Y.2d 209, 270 N.Y.S.2d 193, 217 N.E.2d 23; People v. Powell, 21 A.D.2d 789, 250 N.Y.S.2d 592; People v. Sprinkler, 16 A.D.2d 705, 227 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Cesare, 30 A.D.2d 868, 292 N.Y.S.2d 948), but in the cited cases the point was raised on a direct appeal from ......
-
People v. Gaines
...received from Di Lieto, logically, the interest of Saunders would be to seek to discredit his codefendant's statement (People v. Sprinkler, 16 A.D.2d 705, 227 N.Y.S.2d 818; cf. United States v. Gougis, 7 Cir., 374 F.2d 758; Sawyer v. Brough, 4 Cir., 358 F.2d 70; anno. 34 A.L.R.3rd 479--482)......