From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1980
77 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

August 18, 1980


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 23, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree and coercion in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. While we are not convinced that the admission of the codefendant's redacted statements to the arresting detective, made out of the presence of defendant, was violative of defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him (see United States v. Lord, 565 F.2d 831), we are of the view that it was nonconstitutional error for the trial court not to have instructed the jury, either at the time those statements were admitted or in its charge, that those statements, which, of course, were inadmissible hearsay as to defendant, were not to be considered as proof of defendant's guilt. Since the proof of defendant's guilt was not "overwhelming", reversal is required (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241). We are also of the view that the trial court's prohibition of all communication between defendant and his attorney during a luncheon recess which interrupted defendant's cross-examination, to which defendant objected, was overbroad and violative of defendant's right to the assistance of counsel (see United States v. Bryant, 545 F.2d 1035; United States v. Allen, 542 F.2d 630, cert den 430 U.S. 908; People v. Narayan, 76 A.D.2d 604). The trial court's failure to explain the application of the law to the facts or to refer to the evidence in any respect was also error (see People v. Mabry, 58 A.D.2d 897). While we do not reach the issue in light of our disposition of this appeal, we note our doubt that defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender predicated upon his prior Federal conviction for mail theft (see Penal Law, § 70.06, subd 1, par [b], cl [i]; People v. Olah, 300 N.Y. 96). Rabin, J.P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1980
77 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PETER PHILLIPS…

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

Date published: Aug 18, 1980

Citations

77 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

People v. Enrique

In People v. Narayan ( 54 N.Y.2d 106, 112, supra), for example, the court cited Geders (supra), not any State…

People v. Vigil

We disagree with defendant's contention. Having found no Colorado law on point, we adopt the rule set forth…