From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 15, 1994
203 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 15, 1994

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that County Court should have suppressed statements he made in response to questioning by the police after defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and indicated that he was not willing to answer questions without an attorney present (see, People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322-323, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007; People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479-480; People v Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 302-303). The error is harmless, however, because there is no reasonable possibility that it might have contributed to defendant's conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).

The court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to call a police officer as a witness at the Huntley hearing. The relevant testimony of that officer would have been cumulative only (see, People v Peterkin, 75 N.Y.2d 985, 986). The issues whether counts 14 and 15 of the indictment were duplicitous and whether the court properly discharged a juror are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15). We have examined the remaining issues on appeal, raised by counsel and by defendant pro se, and find them to be lacking in merit.


Summaries of

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 15, 1994
203 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMIE WILSON, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

People v. Fontanez

Further, the delay of little more than an hour between the receipt of the note from the jury and its verdict…