THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RANDY S. CAMPNEY, APPELLANT.
94 N.Y.2d 307 (1999).
December 21, 1999
3 No. 196
(99 NY Int. 0183)
Decided December 21, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
99 N.Y. Int. 0183.
December 21, 1999
(99 NY Int. 0183)
Decided December 21, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
BELLACOSA, J.:
Defendant urges that circumstantial proof is not permissible to allow
an inference of assent or adoption of a third party's statement. This
Court rejects defendant's argument. Applying standard principles, we
conclude that the trial court appropriately permitted the jury to
consider whether defendant adopted his accomplice brother's written
statement. The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be
affirmed.
A Stewart's convenience store was burglarized on May 23, 1996.
Thereafter, in connection with the burglary investigation, defendant
Randy Campney and his younger brother, Burton Campney, were arrested
and taken to State Police barracks for questioning. Defendant invoked
his right to counsel and refused to speak with the officers. He was
placed in a room, with one wrist handcuffed to a ring on the wall.
Burton was interrogated elsewhere and gave a statement detailing how
the two brothers burglarized the store. Burton's statement was reduced
to writing, but before he would sign it, he asked to speak with his
brother, defendant-appellant here.
Accommodating Burton's request, the officers brought him to the room
where defendant was being held. The brothers conferred there privately
for 10 to 15 minutes. When the investigators returned, they observed
SNIPPETS:
Defendant urges that circumstantial proof is not permissible to allow an inference of assent
Applying standard principles, we conclude that the trial court appropriately permitted the
The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be affirmed.
Thereafter, in connection with the burglary investigation, defendant Randy Campney and his
After this utterance, defendant handed the paper back to Burton, who thereafter signed it.
The court also concluded that the statement was a spontaneous response to a question posed by
Following summations, the court instructed the jury that before it could consider defendant's
The court concluded these instructions by stating that, only after these two criteria were
The court concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting Burton's confession into
This Court has cautioned that "n individual's reaction to a* * * accusatory query is
The determination whether a threshold foundation has been established for the admissibility
Thus, circumstantial evidence may be used, as the dissent acknowledges, to determine the
Because the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence, as an adoptive admission, a
In September 1996, defendant Randy Campney and his brother Burton were arrested for the
Thereafter, two officers returned to the interrogation room, observed defendant holding the
Opinion by Judge Bellacosa.
|
