People v. Lee
| Citation | 58 N.Y.2d 773,445 N.E.2d 195,459 N.Y.S.2d 19 |
| Parties | , 445 N.E.2d 195 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles LEE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1982 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 87 A.D.2d 741, 448 N.Y.S.2d 607, should be affirmed.
It cannot be said that the Trial Judge's warning to defendant's witness "effectively drove that witness off the stand" (Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98, 93 S.Ct. 351, 353, 34 L.Ed.2d 330). The threat in Webb, as in the other cases cited by defendant (People v. Ramos, 63 A.D.2d 1009, 406 N.Y.S.2d 123; United States v. Reed, 421 F.2d 190; Berg v. Morris, 483 F.Supp. 179) was of prosecution for perjury. Here there was no threat. Rather the Trial Judge, after receiving the concurrence of defendant's attorney to her doing so, informed the witness (who it was said would testify that he was the one, in fact, who sold the narcotics) that he had the right to remain silent and plead the privilege against self incrimination, that he should come in with an attorney, and that if he testified his testimony "should be referred very strongly to the District Attorney for appropriate action." Although the words "very strongly" would have been better left unsaid, the warning constituted no more than a statement that if the witness testified to his own commission of a crime the District Attorney would be so advised. As we have recognized in People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422, 409 N.E.2d 897, there is an obligation to warn a witness though not in terms so intimidating as to interfere with his choice whether to testify. The warning here given did no more than advise the witness of possible consequences of which he was entitled to know before deciding to testify.
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them either unpreserved or without merit.
FUCHSBERG, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melendez v. City of N.Y.
...putting someone wrongfully in fear of injury and those simply apprising of legal consequences. See, e.g. , People v. Lee , 58 N.Y.2d 773, 775, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19, 445 N.E.2d 195 (1982) (holding witness not "threaten[ed]" by trial judge who "did no more than advise" of possible consequences of ......
-
People v. Brooks
...York, witness have also been warned of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (See, i.e., People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 773, 775, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19, 445 N.E.2d 195 (court warned witness); People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 757, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422, 409 N.E.2d 897 (the prosecutor i......
-
People v. Siegel
...consequences of giving such testimony and of the witness' Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to testify (see, People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 773, 775, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19, 445 N.E.2d 195; see also, People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 761-762, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422, 409 N.E.2d 897). To be sure, there are li......
-
People v. Smith
...know before deciding to testify," in other words, and that advice did not constitute improper intimidation ( People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 773, 775, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19, 445 N.E.2d 195 [1982] ; see People v. Vanluvender, 35 A.D.3d 238, 239, 827 N.Y.S.2d 22 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 928, 834 N.Y.S.......
-
Privileges
...a nonparty witness. Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., Inc ., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961 (1980); see People v. Lee , 58 N.Y.2d 773, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1982). he court must honor a witness’ decision to invoke the privilege unless it is abundantly clear that the answer could ......
-
Table of cases
...192 A.D.2d 332, 595 N.Y.S.2d 764 (1st Dept. 1993), § 6:20 People v. Leavitt, 301 N.Y. 113, 92 N.E.2d 915 (1950), § 19:80 People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 773, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1982), §§ 7:60, 16:110 People v. Lee , 89 A.D.3d 633, 933 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1st Dept. 2011), § 14:50 People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 1......
-
Privileges
...a nonparty witness. Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., Inc ., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961 (1980); see People v. Lee , 58 N.Y.2d 773, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1982). he privilege does not bar a question from being asked or a document from being requested. Lawrence N. Gray, Evidenti......
-
Privileges
...a nonparty witness. Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., Inc ., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961 (1980); see People v. Lee , 58 N.Y.2d 773, 459 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1982). The court must honor a witness’ decision to invoke the privilege unless it is abundantly clear that the answer could......