From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 8, 1991

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People's proof was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction of felony murder because it failed to establish that his conduct caused the death of Karin Strand. He asserts that the victim's death was the result of the hospital's malpractice, rather than the knife wounds she received during his assault. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that a rational jury could have found that defendant's assault was a contributing cause of the fatality (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 280-281; People v Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407, 412-413; People v Kane, 213 N.Y. 260, 270).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of three witnesses. He alleges that their testimony was the fruit of his confession obtained in violation of the rule set forth in People v Bartolomeo ( 53 N.Y.2d 225). Between the date of defendant's conviction and this appeal, the Court of Appeals in People v Bing ( 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337) overruled People v Bartolomeo (supra) and its progeny. Because defendant's contention must be reviewed pursuant to the present state of the law (see, People ex rel. Julio v Walters, 88 A.D.2d 259, appeal dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 881), the alleged violation of the Bartolomeo rule does not provide a basis for the suppression of the witnesses' testimony. In any event, even if the confession was illegally obtained under the Bartolomeo rule, the court properly denied suppression because the testimony was not obtained from the exploitation of the confession and was given voluntarily (see, People v Barksdale, 133 A.D.2d 770, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1003; see also, People v Graham, 39 N.Y.2d 775; People v La Rocca, 37 N.Y.2d 927; People v Mendez, 28 N.Y.2d 94, cert denied 404 U.S. 911).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LUNDIE K. BROWN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 1038 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 526

Citing Cases

People v. Vail

We disagree. This Court has previously applied Bing retroactively (see, People v Brown, 174 A.D.2d 842) and…

People v. Melvin

The defendant responded that he had gotten rid of it and that it would never be found. With the numerous…