TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Robinson

The People of the State of New York v. Herman Robinson

People v. Robinson, 172 A.D.2d 1006 (1991)
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
April 26, 1991
Citations
172 A.D.2d 1006569 N.Y.S.2d 2651991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6241

Opinion of the Court

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence at his second trial his redacted testimony from his previous trial. He asserts that the testimony was inadmissible at his retrial because it was the fruit of the illegally seized evidence that this court suppressed when it granted him a new trial (see, People v Robinson, 144 AD2d 960 ).

If testimony at a defendant’s first trial was compelled by the People’s introduction of illegally seized evidence, that testimony was tainted and cannot be used at his retrial (see, Harrison v United States, 392 US 219 ; People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 145-146 ). Further, it is the People’s burden to prove that their use of the illegally obtained evidence did not compel defendant to testify (see, Harrison v United States, supra, at 225-226).

Hqfe, defense counsel objected to the admission of defendant’s prior testimony and asserted that it was compelled by the introduction of the illegally seized evidence that included the knife used in the murder. In response thereto, the People wholly failed to provide any showing that defendant’s testimony was not induced by the introduction of the illegally seized evidence. Because the People failed to establish that the underlying illegality did not taint defendant’s testimony, the court erred in admitting defendant’s testimony into evidence (see, Harrison v United States, supra, at 224-226). The erroneous admission of defendant’s testimony, however, does not require reversal because its introduction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222, 226 ; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 ). There was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt in the record and we conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that defendant’s testimony contributed to his conviction (see, People v Crimmins, supra).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

1996: 119962026peak 1996 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Spencer219 A.D.2d 259 (1996)

Most recent

  1. People v. Spencer219 A.D.2d 259 (1996)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968) 643
People v. Crimmins, 326 N.E.2d 787 (N.Y. 1975) 5,242
People v. Almestica, 366 N.E.2d 799 (N.Y. 1977) 87
People v. Levan, 464 N.E.2d 469 (N.Y. 1984) 78
People v. Robinson, 144 A.D.2d 960 (1988) 4

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