Legal Opinion
People v. Woodward
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 12, 1980PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
That a defendant’s confession was oral while that of his codefendant was written is a factor to be considered in determining whether the Bruton v United States (391 US 123) rule or the People v McNeil (24 NY2d 550) exception (an exception most recently applied by us in People v Berzups [49 NY2d 417]) governs, but by itself is not enough to make the rule rather than the exception apply.
Here not only were defendant’s oral confession and Freeman’s written statement interlocking in all material respects, but…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- People v. BerzupsNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. SafianNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- People v. McNeilNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. CruzNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- People v. CampneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- People v. BrensicAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Anthony Tamilio v. Walter Fogg, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, and Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- In re Kayla R.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.