Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Samuel E. L. 66 N.Y.2d 984

← Cases

In re Samuel E. L.

66 N.Y.2d 984 Court N.Y. Decision date 1985-12-17 English

Contents

Majority

p. 984
In the Matter of Samuel E. L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
Argued November 15, 1985;
decided December 17, 1985
p. 985
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Christopher J. Jones, Rose H. Sconiers and Peter J. Martinelli for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Even if the youth counselor’s testimony concerning an admission made by appellant should have been suppressed as elicited in violation of Miranda v Arizona ( 384 US 436 ), a question we need hot reach, the adjudication of delinquency should, nonetheless, be affirmed. We agree with the lower courts that the evidence, even without this admission, was sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trial Judge explicitly stated that he reached the determination of guilt without reference to the youth counsel- or’s testimony, therefore, the admission of that testimony, even if in error, was harmless.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited