People v. Rumble

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 383 N.E.2d 108, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305

Decision Date: 10/24/1978

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 410 N.Y.S.2d 806, 383 N.E.2d 108, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2305 (1978)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1978

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 71 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.59

N.Y.7

N.Y. Sup. Ct.2

2d Cir.1

NY1

W.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Riley N.Y. App. Div.
2018People v. Ash N.Y. App. Div.
2018People v. Silburn N.Y.
2017People v. Powell N.Y. App. Div.
2015People v. Hardy N.Y.
2011People v. Stanford N.Y. App. Div.
2010People v. Campbell N.Y. App. Div.
2010People v. Bradley N.Y. App. Div.
2008People v. Geddes N.Y. App. Div.
2007People v. Casper N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 1 case

People v. Benzinger

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey H. Rumble, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Richard V. Maiming for appellant.
William H. Power, Jr., District Attorney, for respondent.

majority

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, 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.