People v. Hendricks

• Decision Date: 16 October 1997
• Citation: People v. Hendricks, 665 N.Y.S.2d 45, 90 N.Y.2d 956 (N.Y. 1997)
• Parties: , 687 N.E.2d 1328, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 8591 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John HENDRICKS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 45

665 N.Y.S.2d 45

90 N.Y.2d 956, 687 N.E.2d 1328, 1997

N.Y. Slip Op. 8591

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.John HENDRICKS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 16, 1997.

Ronald L. Kuby, New York City, for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney of Nassau County, Mineola (John F. McGlynn, Tammy J. Smiley and Peter A. Weinstein, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.During the People's direct case, the prosecutor elicited police testimony that defendant was given his Miranda warnings, acknowledged receipt of the warnings and agreed in writing to waive his rights.The officer further testified that, after obtaining the waiver, he informed defendant that he would like to obtain a written statement whereupon defendant responded, "I'll talk to you but I am not signing anything else."Defendant then gave an oral statement.

In these circumstances, the officer's testimony did not constitute an impermissible comment on defendant's invocation of his right to silence.Defendant did not invoke his right to silence.On the contrary he waived it, and after indicating that he would rather not put his statement in writing, defendant gave an oral statement.Defendant's preference for making his statement orally rather than in writing was not, in this context, an indication that he wanted to cut off further inquiry which would have invoked his right to silence (cf., People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 587-588, 394 N.Y.S.2d 183, 362 N.E.2d 982[defendant who refused to talk further invoked his right to remain silent] ).

Defendant's reliance on Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S.Ct. 828, ...