You are here: / / THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED...
, ,

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the redacted statement of the co-defendant (Quaile) should not have been admitted in evidence because it was clear the redacted portions referred to the defendant and were inculpatory. Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated:

… [A]lthough Quaile’s statement was redacted, the jury was allowed to see where portions were blacked out and, given that the statement focused upon defendant’s arrest and the items found in the trailer, there were “obvious indications that it was altered to protect the identity of a specific person,” namely, defendant … . The redacted statement further advised the jury that defendant was Quaile’s live-in boyfriend, that she did not know what the plastic bottle and tissues found in their bedroom were used for, that she did not know how to make methamphetamine and that she “did not know the answers” to some of [a sheriff’s] questions at the trailer. When those comments are considered in tandem with the location of the blacked-out text in the statement, they can “only be read by the jury as inculpating defendant” by suggesting that he had the information and know-how that Quaile lacked and was involved in the charged crimes … . The admission of the statement therefore violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In view of County Court’s failure “to give the critical limiting instruction that the jury should not consider the statement itself against anyone but” Quaile, as well as the lack of methamphetamine in the trailer or test results tying the items found in the trailer to methamphetamine production, we cannot say that the evidence against defendant is overwhelming or ” that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … . People v Stone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00323, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

You might also like
Supreme Court’s Annulment of Regulation Permitting Out-Of-Competition Drug Testing of Harness Racehorses Reversed
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL OF A PLEA OFFER WHICH WAS MORE LENIENT THAN THE OFFER TO WHICH HE PLED (THIRD DEPT).
IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).
NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
REVERSING SUPREME COURT THE THIRD DEPT NOTED THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION AND DID SO IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN IN THIS ZONING AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATION CASE (THIRD DEPT).
THE LEASE FOR THE LAND WHERE PLAINTIFF PLANTED CROPS HAD A MUTUAL 90-DAY TERMINATION PROVISION WHICH DEFENDANTS EXERCISED; DEFENDANTS THEN DESTROYED THE CROPS MONTHS BEFORE THEY COULD BE HARVESTED; PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONVERSION BASED UPON THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND THE THEORY OF EMBLEMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN SESSION (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

NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOFT... FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED...