From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1987
134 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 16, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find, as did the hearing court, that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The claim that his statements were the product of psychological coercion is unsupported by the record. We also conclude that the refusal of the court to grant his request for a severance on the ground that his defense and the defense of his codefendant Teller were antagonistic did not substantially impair his defense (see, People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405; cf., People v. Teller, 130 A.D.2d 528). No issue under Bruton v. United States ( 391 U.S. 123), or Cruz v. New York (481 US ___, 107 S Ct 1714) was raised. This issue, if it had been raised, would have been without merit. No violation of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause was implicated since each of the defendants testified and exercised his right to cross-examine the other defendant with respect to his statement. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's application for a severance. Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1987
134 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Palmer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM PALMER…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Dilone

We find no abuse or improvident exercise of that discretion here. As for the Bruton issue, we note that there…