From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Poywing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1989
150 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 30, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

At trial, the defendant moved for a severance of her trial from that of her codefendants on the ground that the admission of her codefendants' oral and videotaped confessions, which implicated her in the crimes, would constitute a violation of her right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The court denied the motion. The codefendants did not testify at trial and consequently the admission of their confessions constituted error under the principles enunciated in Bruton v United States ( 391 U.S. 123) and Cruz v New York ( 481 U.S. 186; see also, People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750).

We find no merit to the People's contention that this error was harmless. The defendant's trial strategy was to impugn the voluntariness, accuracy and existence of her statements based upon the fact that she neither signed the detective's notes purporting to be her confession nor made a subsequent videotaped statement (see, People v Velasquez, 143 A.D.2d 956; People v Martin, 139 A.D.2d 599, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 862). As such, the defendant took the stand and repeatedly denied that she participated in the incident. Moreover, the defendant's own statement was less inculpatory with respect to her part in the crimes than the confessions of the codefendants (see, People v Di Nicolantonio, 140 A.D.2d 44). In addition, the objective evidence unrelated to the defendant's statement which is probative of her part in the crimes is less than overwhelming. Therefore, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no possibility that the admission of the codefendants' statements contributed to the conviction of the defendant (see, People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, supra; People v Di Nicolantonio, 140 A.D.2d 44, supra).

In light of our disposition of this issue, we decline to address the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Poywing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1989
150 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Poywing

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EUJENEE POYWING…

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

Date published: May 30, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Poywing

Thus the statement subsequently made by him was properly admitted into evidence. This court has already…

People v. Biggerstaff

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We have already concluded on the appeal of the codefendant Eujenee…