People v. Gary
Citation | 31 N.Y.2d 68,334 N.Y.S.2d 883,286 N.E.2d 263 |
Parties | , 286 N.E.2d 263 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert GARY, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 06 July 1972 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Benjamine Heinrich, Robert Kasanof and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Martin I. Saperstein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
The issue presented by this appeal arises upon defendant-appellant's contention that inasmuch as he had once indicated, when first taken into police custody, that he did not wish to make a statement, the authorities were precluded from thereafter seeking to elicit information from him, after again advising him of his Miranda rights.
Defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, in satisfaction of a murder indictment. Upon the Huntley hearing that preceded the plea, it appeared that defendant approached a patrolman of the New York City Police Department and stated that he had stabbed a man. The policeman transported defendant to a nearby station house where he remained until the arrival of officers summoned from another precinct, who conducted defendant to their own precinct, where a detective, upon arresting defendant, advised him of his Miranda rights. As evidenced by a form which he signed, defendant stated that he fully understood his rights and that he wished to remain silent. No further questions were asked and the detective transported defendant to another precinct, where he was joined by an Assistant District Attorney, this approximately one hour after the arrest. The Assistant District Attorney informed defendant as to his Miranda rights and this time time defendant indicated that he was willing to talk, and he thereupon gave a statement which the stenographer then present recorded.
The contention that, having once invoked his right to remain silent, defendant could not again be asked to speak, rests largely upon the general exposition found in Miranda, where it was said: (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473--474, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.) There is, however, a clear distinction between the continuation, whether by successive agencies or otherwise, of an 'interrogation' thus foreclosed (see, e.g., Westover v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 496--497, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 decided with Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, Supra) and a subsequent request, upon reiteration of the requisite warnings, for reconsideration of an earlier decision to make no statement (cf. Westover, 384 U.S., at p. 496, 86 S.Ct. 1602). The narrow issue presented by this case, then, is whether the Assistant District...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Michigan v. Mosley
...N.W.2d 822, 829 (1974); State v. Godfrey, 182 Neb. 451, 454-457, 155 N.W.2d 438, 440-442 (1968); People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 69-70, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 884-885, 286 N.E.2d 263, 264 (1972); State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 296-297, 158 S.E.2d 511, 520 (1968); Commonwealth v. Grandison, 449 Pa.......
-
Harry v. Commonwealth of Ky.
...N.W.2d 822, 829 (1974); State v. Godfrey, 182 Neb. 451, 454–457, 155 N.W.2d 438, 440–442 (1968); People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 69–70, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 884–885, 286 N.E.2d 263, 264 (1972); State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 296–297, 158 S.E.2d 511, 520 (1968); Commonwealth v. Grandison, 449 Pa.......
-
People v. Bing
...of counsel (see, People v. Davis, 75 N.Y.2d 517, 522-523, 554 N.Y.S.2d 460, 553 N.E.2d 1008, supra; see also, People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 286 N.E.2d 263). Why then should the second-time offender, who presumably has received prior advice on how to deal with the authoriti......
-
People v. Ferro
...period thereafter and without a fresh set of warnings be importuned to speak about the same suspected crime (People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68, 70, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 286 N.E.2d 263; Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 106, 96 S.Ct. 321, 327, 46 L.Ed.2d 313, supra; see People v. Buxton, 44 N.Y.2d 33......