From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Branshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1991
177 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 15, 1991

Appeal from the Oswego County Court, Brandt, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contentions that the court unduly restricted the scope of a Massiah-Cardona hearing (see, Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201; People v. Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d 333), or that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the hearing. The court permitted, and defense counsel in fact pursued, all relevant areas of questioning. The court's decision that the informant was not acting as an agent of the government is amply supported by the record.

The court was not authorized to permit the victim's mother to speak at sentencing (see, CPL 380.50). The error was harmless, however, since the oral statement was not so inflammatory that it rendered the sentencing flawed (cf., People v. Raucci, 136 A.D.2d 48; People v. McCarthy, 136 Misc.2d 623).


Summaries of

People v. Branshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1991
177 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Branshaw

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
578 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

People v. Snickles

Third, defendant contends that the prosecution failed to disclose promises made to Durham and Theroux which…

People v. Saddler

The 2 1/2 week delay in the trial due to the illness of the Trial Judge neither prejudiced defendant nor…