You are here: / / Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement...
,

Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement Implicated the Defendant in the Light of Other Trial Evidence Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation

The Third Department determined a co-defendant’s statement, which had been redacted to exclude references to the defendant, was admissible.  The defendant’s argument that the statement implicated him in the light of the trial evidence was rejected:

A defendant’s right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of “the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant” …; however, no such violation occurs where, as here, the codefendant’s statement incriminates the defendant only in light of other evidence produced at trial … . Nor did the use of plural pronouns such as “we” and “they” in the statement necessarily indicate any involvement by defendant … . Accordingly, the statement was admissible, and defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated by the People’s arguments that drew inferences about his participation by linking the statement with other trial evidence … . People v Maschio, 2014 NY Slip Op 03551, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

You might also like
APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD ACCEPTED ONE EXPERT’S OPINION AND REJECTED THE OTHER BASED ON AN ISSUE THE EXPERTS WERE NEVER ASKED ABOUT; DECISION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct
Cy Pres Doctrine Properly Applied to Distribute Gifts to the Hospital Which Had Taken Over the Duties of the Named Hospital
Cross-Examination About the Omission of Exculpatory Information from a Statement Made to Police Is Not the Same as Cross-Examination About the Exercise of the Right to Remain Silent
PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION, DESPITE THE FACT THE APPROVAL HAD BEEN RESCINDED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL TORTURE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE JUROR EXPRESSED A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO INJURY TO ANIMALS AND THE COURT NEVER SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF SHOULD COULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded... Purchaser of a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility Was Not...