green
Positive treatment
Issue: circumstantial evidence instructionNY ↗
Issue: rigorous standardNY ↗
13.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis, supposition or proposition except that of guilt of the accused.
at p. 881
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ash
In contrast, where, as here, the proof against defendant consisted both of direct evidence — defendant's admission that he quickly and aggressively picked the victim up by the leg and the medical proof concerning the victim's injury — and circumstantial evidence, a circumstantial evidence charge is not required ( see People v Rumble , 45 NY2d 879, 880 [1978]; People v Bryce , 174 AD2d 945, 946 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 854 [1992]; cf. People v Varmette , 70 AD3d 1167, 1171 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010]; People v Lewis , 300 AD2d 827, 829 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 630 [2003]; People …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Powell
(2×)
People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]), admissions of guilt are acts that a defendant admits he or she has already performed (see e.g.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Pettis Hardy
A defendant’s statement is direct evidence only “if it constitutes ‘a relevant admission of guilt’” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994], quoting People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880 [1978]; see People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 558-559 [1979], rearg denied 53 NY2d 938 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Campbell
Rather, certain of the defendant’s statements regarding the subject incidents, as related by a police witness, constituted direct evidence of several of the principal facts in issue (see People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 559-560 [1979]; People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880 [1978]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Geddes
As noted, the court properly determined that the report contained inadmissible hearsay, and we further note that a circumstantial evidence charge would have been improper because the People also presented direct evidence of defendant’s guilt, i.e., statements by defendant that constituted “ ‘relevant admission[s] of guilt’ ” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994], quoting People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880 [1978]; see People v Casper, 42 AD3d 887, 888 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 990 [2007]; People v Green, 174 AD2d 511, 512-513 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1011 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Casper
Where, as here, defendant’s statements “ ‘could be interpreted as relevant admissions of guilt . . . , there [i]s both direct and circumstantial evidence,’ and the court therefore [i]s not required to give a circumstantial evidence charge” (People v Mastowski, 26 AD3d 744, 746 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 850 [2006], 7 NY3d 815 [2006]; see People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 558-559 [1979], rearg denied 53 NY2d 938 [1981]; People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]; People v Burgos, 195 AD2d 978, 979 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 752 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Louisias
(2×)
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this is not a case in which the People relied solely upon circumstantial evidence, as the defendant’s admissions constituted direct evidence (see People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]; People v Schoendorf, 196 AD2d 600, 601 [1993]; People v Lilly, 158 AD2d 622, 622 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fulton
Even assuming, arguendo, that such a charge was required (see People v Burke, 62 NY2d 860, 861 [1984]; cf. People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]; People v Mastowski, 26 AD3d 744 [2006]), we conclude that the court’s failure to give the charge is harmless error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bryant
The court also properly denied defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge with respect to two counts of the indictment inasmuch as the letter allegedly written by defendant was direct evidence of his guilt (see People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]; cf. People v Sanchez, 61 NY2d 1022, 1023 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Burke
The trial court, citing on the record to the case of People v Rumble (45 NY2d 879, 880), categorized these statements made by defendant to Bennett as direct evidence and, therefore, denied defendant’s request that a charge on the law regarding cases based totally on circumstantial evidence be given.
discussed
Cited "see"
STANFORD, JAMES RALPH, PEOPLE v
Here, inasmuch as defendant’s statements to the police “constituted direct evidence of several of the principal facts [at] issue” (People v Campbell, 69 AD3d 645, 646 ), the court properly denied his request for that charge (see People v Alexander, 153 AD2d 507, 509 , affd 75 NY2d 979 ; People v Buskey, 13 AD3d 1058 ; see generally People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Stanford
Here, inasmuch as defendant’s statements to the police “constituted direct evidence of several of the principal facts [at] issue” (People v Campbell, 69 AD3d 645, 646 [2010]), the court properly denied his request for that charge (see People v Alexander, 153 AD2d 507, 509 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 979 [1990]; People v Buskey, 13 AD3d 1058 [2004]; see generally People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1978]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
See People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 881 (1978) (mem.), People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662 , 663 (1992)(mem.). 42 The testimony against Michael is quoted at length in the opinion of the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirming his second conviction, See People v. Quartararo, supra, at 167-71.
examined
Cited "see"
Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
(3×)
See People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 881 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 806 , 383 N.E.2d 108 (1978) (mem.), People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662 , 663, 578 N.Y.S.2d 603 (1992)(mem.).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kelly
(People v Ed wards, 147 AD2d 586 [2d Dept]; People v Alexander, 153 AD2d 507 [1st Dept].) (3) A confession is a statement regarding an act which constitutes a principal or res gestae fact (People v Duffy, 124 AD2d 258 [3d Dept]; see, People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879 ; People v Burke, 96 AD2d 971 , affd 62 NY2d 860 ). (4) A confession is a direct acknowledgment of guilt made by a defendant (Richardson, Evidence § 540 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323 ). (5) A statement is not a confession unless it is a full and direct acknowledgment of all the elements of the crime.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Bradley
We agree with the People that defendant’s statements to the victim, immediately prior to and after the incident, constitute admissions of guilt and thus that a circumstantial evidence charge was not warranted (see People v Pagan, 159 AD2d 6 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 895 [1990]; see also People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879 [1978]), let alone an expanded charge.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Hayes
(Cf., People v Engler, 150 AD2d 827, 829-830 [3d Dept 1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 770 [1989] [prior to beating the child to death, defendant’s abusive conduct included, inter alia, immersing child in scalding water, and breaking child’s arm during a beating]; People v Sims, 110 AD2d 214, 222-224 [2d Dept 1985] [upholding conviction of assault in the first degree where defendant intentionally immersed her two-year-old daughter in a tub of scalding water for at least 20 to 30 seconds; considerable evidence of abuse included admissions of beatings which were so severe that substantial scars resu…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jeffrey H. Rumble
v.
Jeffrey H. Rumble
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 24, 1978.
383 N.E.2d 108
1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Richard V. Maiming for appellant., William H. Power, Jr., District Attorney, for respondent.
Cited by 75 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant’s statement to his brother that "I’m not responsible for what I did”, if interpreted by the fact finder as a relevant admission of guilt, distinguishes this case from those based exclusively on circumstantial evidence (e.g., People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29,[*881] 32). Hence, the rigorous standards which obtain in circumstantial cases are not applicable.
The memorandum at the Appellate Division contains several unfortunate references to the lack of explanation for the cause of decedent’s catching fire. In context, however, it is evident that that court was not suggesting that defendant had an obligation to explain, through his own testimony or otherwise, the events leading up to the fire. Instead, the court was indicating that, in the absence of countervailing evidence, defendant’s admission, combined with the circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as indeed it was. This is true despite discomfort arising from absence of evidence of motive and the strange circumstance that the grandfather and defendant, in struggling over the hose valve, according to the grandfather, exchanged no words.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.