People v. Bastidas
| Decision Date | 13 May 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 1006,494 N.E.2d 446,503 N.Y.S.2d 315 |
| Parties | , 494 N.E.2d 446 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro BASTIDAS, Also Known as Pedro Criollo, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 108 A.D.2d 866, 485 N.Y.S.2d 576, should be affirmed.
Notwithstanding that defendant's earlier statement was given without Miranda warnings, his later statement made after such warnings cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been given in violation of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. This follows from the findings of the Trial Judge, supported by the record and undisturbed by the Appellate Division, and, therefore, beyond our power of review, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the detective to the station house; that he was left unattended in the detective's office from 8:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. while his earlier statement was being investigated; that he was given food, drink and, when he complained of the cold, a sweater; that he was permitted contact with a family member; and that when he testified he made no claim that he had been told he could not leave (People v. Winchell, 64 N.Y.2d 826, 486 N.Y.S.2d 930, 476 N.E.2d 329; People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 483 N.Y.S.2d 198, 472 N.E.2d 1026; cf. People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243).
Moreover, duress, like entrapment and extreme emotional disturbance, "does not serve to negate any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict" (Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 207, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2325, 53 L.Ed.2d 281, affg. People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898). It is rather a separate issue in disproof of intent, the State being required in the first instance to prove the necessary intent. Penal Law § 40.00, which denominates duress an affirmative defense, is, therefore, constitutional (People v. Patterson, supra; People v. Laietta, 30 N.Y.2d 68, 75, 330 N.Y.S.2d 351, 281 N.E.2d 157).
The other issues raised by defendant are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.
TITONE, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fink v. Bennett
...duress. See Trial Tr. at 969, 995; see People v. Bastidas, 108 A.D.2d 866, 485 N.Y.S.2d 576 (2d Dept. 1985), aff'd, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 494 N.E.2d 446 (1986). 13. The County Court also advised the jury of this legal precept at the beginning of the trial once the twelve members......
-
People v. Horn, 704
...the elements that the People are required to prove in the first instance, such as intent (see § 40.00; People v. Bastidas , 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 1007, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 494 N.E.2d 446 [1986], rearg denied 68 N.Y.2d 907, 508 N.Y.S.2d 946, 501 N.E.2d 595 [1986] ; see also United States v. Leal-Cru......
-
People v. Davis
...N.E.2d 243). Such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation occurred in this case ( see e.g. [106 A.D.3d 153]People v. Bastidas, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 1007, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 494 N.E.2d 446 [1986];People v. Rodriguez, 49 A.D.3d 431, 433, 853 N.Y.S.2d 346 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. denied10 N.Y......
-
Fagon v. Bara, 86 Civ. 2685.
...(holding that claim was not preserved for review), and the New York Court of Appeals also rejected it in People v. Bastidas, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 494 N.E.2d 446 (1986). However, since neither of these opinions constitute authority binding upon this court, analysis of the case l......