People v. Vitagliano
| Decision Date | 15 April 1965 |
| Parties | , 206 N.E.2d 864 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carmine VITAGLIANO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Joseph Lonardo, Long Island City, for appellant.
Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty. (Eugene Feldman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
A close question of fact was presented concerning the identity of appellant as the driver of the automobile which took his alleged accomplices, Anfossi and Wright, to the scene of the crime, and drove them away afterwards. A confession of Anfossi was read into evidence, over the objection of counsel for appellant, which implicated him as the driver of the automobile. At the time of its admission, appellant's counsel asked the court to delete any references made in the statement by Anfossi which implicated appellant, notwithstanding which Anfossi's entire confession was received in evidence.
Where it is not possible to segregate the implication of a codefendant in a confession, for the reason that the admission of guilt is so interrelated in the involvement of the accomplice as to render it impossible for practical purposes to separate them, there is no alternative but to receive the confession and then for the court to instruct the jury to consider it only as against the one who has confessed, disregarding the implication of anyone else in the commission of the crime. Such an instruction is not a perfect solution to the problem, inasmuch as it is difficult to eliminate from the minds of the jurors the implication of the codefendant, but it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Here there was no abuse of discretion in ordering these defendants to be tried together, but where it is possible, as here, to separate the portions of the confession in which the confessor admits his own guilt from his involvement of another, it has been held that the confession should be redacted by eliminating the portion implicating the codefendant (People v. Robinson, 13 N.Y.2d 296, 246 N.Y.S.2d 623, 196 N.E.2d 261; People v. Robinson, 16 A.D.2d 184, 224 N.Y.S.2d 705; People v. Lombard, 4 A.D.2d 666, 168 N.Y.S.2d 419; People v. Lee, 4 A.D.2d 770, 165 N.Y.S.2d 338). In the present instance, Anfossi's implication of appellant in his confession (Exhibit 10) was in a separate paragraph from his admission of his own guilt. It was, therefore, error to admit the entire confession, over bojection by appellant's co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Brown
...to codefendants where practicable. See, e. g., Oliver v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 302 335 F.2d 724; People v. Vitagliano, 15 N.Y.2d 360, 258 N.Y.S.2d 839 206 N.E.2d 864; People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105 222 N.E.2d 727. For criticisms suggesting that deletions (reda......
-
Bruton v. United States, 705
...to codefendants where practicable. See, e.g., Oliver v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 302, 335 F.2d 724; People v. Vitagliano, 15 N.Y.2d 360, 258 N.Y.S.2d 839, 206 N.E.2d 864; People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 222 N.E.2d 727. For criticisms suggesting that deletions (re......
-
People v. Baker
...252, 17 L.Ed.2d 189) since in this Pre-Bruton case their admission under limiting instructions was proper. (People v. Vitagliano, 15 N.Y.2d 360, 258 N.Y.S.2d 839, 206 N.E.2d 864; see Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (holding Bruton retroactive).) Nor can the ......
-
United States v. Follette
...York law petitioner's attorney could have objected to the use of Smith's statements and confession. See People v. Vitagliano, 15 N.Y.2d 360, 258 N.Y.S.2d 839, 206 N.E.2d 864 (1965); People v. Marshall, 306 N.Y. 223, 117 N.E.2d 265 (1954); People v. Robinson, 16 A.D.2d 184, 224 N.Y.S.2d 705 ......