AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JERRY McBEE, appellant. (Ind. No. 1026/99).

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that he was denied his right to confront witnesses when the trial court permitted two detectives to testify regarding statements that were made to them during the course of their investigation by certain persons who did not testify at the trial. In Crawford v. Washington (US, 124 S Ct 1354), the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of statements which are testimonial in nature violates the — Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In Crawford, the Supreme Court concluded that statements which are the product of police interrogation are testimonial in nature ( id.). Here, assuming that the statements made to the detectives could be characterized as impermissible testimonial statements under Crawford, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case, there is no reasonable possibility that the error, if any, might have contributed to the defendant's conviction and thus was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; State v. Herrmann, 679 N.W.2d 503 [SD]).

However, the defendant's sentence for attempted robbery in the first degree must be modified to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the conviction for felony murder, as the attempted robbery constituted the underlying felony for the felony murder conviction, and was a material element of that crime ( see Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640, 643; People v. Benitez, 281 A.D.2d 487, 488; People v. Leo, 255 A.D.2d 458, 459).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. McBEE
(Jun 14, 2004)