From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Judd

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 6, 2012
96 A.D.3d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-6

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Charles JUDD, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered July 19, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court should have redacted his videotaped confession so as to omit references to possible prior robberies ( see CPL 470.05[2] ). Further, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in refusing to redact those portions of the statement, as they did not relate to a relevant and material issue in the case ( see *570People v. Cass, 18 N.Y.3d 553, 559–560, 942 N.Y.S.2d 416, 965 N.E.2d 918;People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241–242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808;People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359–360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59;People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 297–305, 61 N.E. 286). However, the error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions ( see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 467, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919;People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 250, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Judd

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 6, 2012
96 A.D.3d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Judd

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Charles JUDD, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 6, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4365
945 N.Y.S.2d 569

Citing Cases

People v. McPhillips

The third statement, in which the defendant acknowledged he had recently been released from jail, was part of…

People v. McPhillips

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved these contentions for appellate review (see CPL…