People v. Hunyadi
| Decision Date | 21 July 1983 |
| Citation | 466 N.Y.S.2d 512,96 A.D.2d 647 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laszlo HUNYADI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Penelope D. Clute, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Joseph W. Kelley, Clinton County Dist. Atty., Plattsburgh, for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County, rendered January 4, 1982, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
The facts in the instant case are largely uncontested. It was reported to correction officials that defendant, a prison inmate, and another inmate exchanged something in a suspicious manner in the prison yard. Both were frisked when brought to the housing area. Defendant was found to have a thermos bottle in his possession in the lining of which was found a table knife, whose end was sharpened to a point. The other inmate was found to have some marihuana in his possession. When questioned as to whom the thermos belonged, defendant claimed it was his. At trial, defendant contended that the thermos was given to him by an inmate named Cohen and that he was told to give it to an inmate named Flocko. Defendant contended that he was unaware that the thermos contained a knife in its lining. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
On appeal, defendant raises a variety of issues, some of which merit comment. On cross-examination, the District Attorney asked defendant whether he had told any correction officer at any time that the thermos had come from another inmate. He also referred to defendant's silence on that point in his summation. Defendant contends that this was in contravention of his right to remain silent and in violation of principles enunciated by the Court of Appeals in People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933). Defendant urges that he had not waived his right to remain silent after an arrest and an appropriate advisement of Miranda rights and that such questions and comments by the District Attorney were improper.
We note that defendant did not preserve the error by objection for our review. We decline to reverse in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15, subd. 3, par. [c]; subd. 6, par. [a] ) and conclude that the District Attorney's questions and comments under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wisdom
...( see People v. Williams, 233 A.D.2d at 536, 650 N.Y.S.2d 998;People v. Baxter, 216 A.D.2d 931, 629 N.Y.S.2d 347;People v. Hunyadi, 96 A.D.2d 647, 648, 466 N.Y.S.2d 512;cf. People v. Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200, 203, 485 N.Y.S.2d 233, 474 N.E.2d 593).III Next, the defendant contends that the Su......
-
People v. Wolcott
...50 N.Y.2d 673, 680, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409 N.E.2d 858, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475; see People v. Hunyadi, 96 A.D.2d 647, 466 N.Y.S.2d 512). Here, the record shows that upon cross-examination of the arresting officer, defense counsel inquired whether defendant m......
- People v. Rossi