People v. Woodward
| Decision Date | 12 June 1980 |
| Citation | 431 N.Y.S.2d 452,409 N.E.2d 926,50 N.Y.2d 922 |
| Parties | , 409 N.E.2d 926 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Norman WOODWARD, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 66 A.D.2d 866, 411 N.Y.S.2d 872, should be affirmed.
That a defendant's confession was oral while that of his codefendant was written is a factor to be considered in determining whether the Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 rule or the People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550, 301 N.Y.S.2d 503, 249 N.E.2d 383 exception (an exception most recently applied by us in People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155) governs, but by itself is not enough to make the rule rather than the exception apply.
Here not only were defendant's oral confession and Freeman's written statement interlocking in all material respects, but also when Freeman's statement was first read to him defendant stated: "Yes, that is what happened." Even at a separate trial, therefore, the Freeman statement would have been admissible since the jury could find that he had adopted it as his own. They were, moreover, advised that Freeeman's statement was only "binding" upon him, and therefore, would not have used it with respect to defendant unless they found that he had in fact adopted it as his own.
The prosecutor's statement in summation that the Freeman confession "implicated" defendant, while unfortunate in its choice of language, was, when considered in context, an attempt to inform the jury how the police learned of defendant's participation rather than a covert attempt to instruct them on the law. As such, the error if any being isolated, and being substantially offset by the court's instructions, the statement furnishes no basis for reversal (People v. Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181, 190, 413 N.Y.S.2d 118, 385 N.E.2d 1046).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brensic
...extrajudicial statement (see, People v. Cruz, supra, 66 N.Y.2d at p. 72, 495 N.Y.S.2d 14, 485 N.E.2d 221; People v. Woodward, 50 N.Y.2d 922, 431 N.Y.S.2d 452, 409 N.E.2d 926; Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713). The application of the exception is not any differe......
-
People v. Cruz
...need not be identical, it is sufficient that both cover all major elements of the crime involved (see, People v. Woodward, 50 N.Y.2d 922, 431 N.Y.S.2d 452, 409 N.E.2d 926; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 425, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155; Tamilio v. Fogg, 713 F.2d 18, 20 ) and are "e......
-
Lloyds London v. Evanston, Index No. 151786/2012
...at defendant's deposition was never adopted by defendant. See People v. Campney, 94 N.Y.2d 307, 312-13 (1999); People v. Woodward, 50 N.Y.2d 922, 923 (1980). Absent a showing that the HVAC unit caused the water leak, defendant's operation of the unit despite having been advised to replace i......
-
Villezcas v. 66 W. 84th St. Owners Corp.
...admissions, see People v. Vining, 28 N.Y.3d 686, 690 (2017); People v. Campney, 94 N.Y.2d 307, 311 (1999); People v. Woodward, 50 N.Y.2d 922, 923 (1980); People v. Gomez, 21 A.D.3d 827, 828 (1st Dep't 2005), 66 West 84th Street Owners Corp. nevertheless fails meet the companion requirement ......