TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Adams

The People of the State of New York v. Jake Adams

People v. Adams, 16 A.D.2d 1034 (1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 27, 1962
Citations
16 A.D.2d 1034230 N.Y.S.2d 1731962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8906

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The appellants were convicted in Erie County Court on two counts, viz. burglary, third degree and grand larceny, second degree. They were accused of breaking into the show window of a television store and taking therefrom two television sets. They were apprehended within minutes after the event and the television sets were found in the defendant Adam’s cab resting against the knees of the defendants Anderson and Easter. Each of the defendants gave written statements, which were offered in evidence and received in evidence as to the defendant to whom it applied. The statement of Adams exculpates himself and places the blame upon his two eodefendants. Anderson blames Adams and exculpates himself and Easter. Easter, who did not appeal, exculpates himself and Anderson and blames Adams. But the last confession contains a reference to Anderson’s previous criminal record. The reference was clearly redaetable. Timely objection was taken by appellant’s counsel. The District Attorney agreed to the editing and elimination of this reference but the court refused and the statement was received with the prejudicial reference to Anderson’s previous criminal record. It was not an admission by either Adams or Anderson. None of the *1035 defendants testified. The unedited statement over objection of counsel was thus improperly received and was highly prejudicial to both Adams and Anderson. We have had occasion recently in this court to reject the admission of unedited but clearly redaetable statements in evidence. (People v. Robinson. 16 A D 2d 184.) But in this case in addition to the defects noted in People V. Robinson (supra), there are other reasons for reversal inasmuch as the so-called statements were not admissions of self complicity but rather of self exculpation coupled with accusation against the eodefendants. The judgments of conviction in both the Adams and Anderson eases should be reversed and new trials granted. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2000: 120002026peak 2000 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. De Los Angeles270 A.D.2d 196 (2000)

Most recent

  1. People v. De Los Angeles270 A.D.2d 196 (2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list