From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Samuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 11, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's primary contention on appeal is that his statement to the police, in which he admitted participating in the July 19, 1979 attempted robbery of the M T Bank and shooting a bank guard, was taken in violation of his right to counsel. Because defendant's conviction occurred prior to the determination in People v. Bartolomeo ( 53 N.Y.2d 225), and because the present record is insufficient to determine his claim, we normally would remit the matter and reopen the Huntley hearing to develop a record on that issue (see, People v. McGee, 155 A.D.2d 878; People v. Tindal, 92 A.D.2d 717). Nevertheless, given the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that remittitur is unnecessary. Even assuming that defendant's confession was admitted in violation of his right to counsel, the error was harmless (see, People v. Almestica, 42 N.Y.2d 222, 226; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242).

The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming. Two customers in the bank identified defendant as one of the robbers and testified that he was the man with the gun. Milton Jones testified that, approximately one-half hour after the bank robbery, defendant went to his home, was nervous and shaking, had blood on his clothes, and was carrying a pearl-handled .357 magnum gun. Jones testified that defendant told him that he had been involved in a robbery and that, when the guard went for his gun, he shot him. Ronald Amerson, one of the other participants in the robbery, also testified that defendant participated in the robbery and shot the bank guard. Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt in the record, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant's confession, even if erroneously admitted, contributed to his conviction (see, People v. Flecha, 60 N.Y.2d 766, 767).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Samuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Samuel

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. OTIS SAMUEL, Appellant

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

Date published: May 11, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 1175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 964

Citing Cases

People v. McNear [4th Dept 1999

Defendant made the statement while he was in custody after arraignment on an unrelated charge, and defendant…